# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | jiangly | 3977 |
2 | tourist | 3815 |
3 | jqdai0815 | 3682 |
4 | ksun48 | 3614 |
5 | orzdevinwang | 3526 |
6 | ecnerwala | 3514 |
7 | Benq | 3483 |
8 | hos.lyric | 3381 |
9 | gamegame | 3374 |
10 | heuristica | 3358 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | cry | 169 |
2 | -is-this-fft- | 162 |
3 | Um_nik | 161 |
4 | atcoder_official | 159 |
5 | djm03178 | 157 |
5 | Dominater069 | 157 |
7 | adamant | 154 |
8 | luogu_official | 152 |
8 | awoo | 152 |
10 | TheScrasse | 148 |
Name |
---|
I think your recursion calls itself too much if you do it all in one go -
depee(10000000)
would calldepee(9999999)
which callsdepee(9999998)
...depee(0)
, and the program consumes alot of memory to keep track of all this recursion. Your second submission avoids this issue. Whendepee(n)
is called, it callsdepee(n-1)
which was previously solved, and thus fewer recursive calls need to be kept track of at a time.a great example why to use bottom-up if can(which we can here)
Thanks for your explanation, I get it now.