I wanted to go into details — but it would have been a full 30 minutes. Any suggestion/query is welcome.
| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3792 |
| 2 | VivaciousAubergine | 3647 |
| 3 | Kevin114514 | 3603 |
| 4 | jiangly | 3583 |
| 5 | turmax | 3559 |
| 6 | tourist | 3541 |
| 7 | strapple | 3515 |
| 8 | ksun48 | 3461 |
| 9 | dXqwq | 3436 |
| 10 | Otomachi_Una | 3413 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 157 |
| 2 | adamant | 153 |
| 3 | Um_nik | 147 |
| 4 | Proof_by_QED | 146 |
| 5 | Dominater069 | 145 |
| 6 | errorgorn | 142 |
| 7 | cry | 139 |
| 8 | YuukiS | 135 |
| 9 | TheScrasse | 134 |
| 10 | chromate00 | 133 |
I wanted to go into details — but it would have been a full 30 minutes. Any suggestion/query is welcome.
| Name |
|---|



I don't think your solution can pass the system test. I think it will be TLE. In the worst case, updating the nodes' information can be O(n); So it's O(q*n)? Did I misunderstand? :D
updating will take O(log(n)) per query. Something like:
So, we are building the data structure for LCA incrementally after each query.
For more info check out "Another easy solution in <O(N logN, O(logN)>" section on TC