| № | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3792 |
| 2 | VivaciousAubergine | 3647 |
| 3 | Kevin114514 | 3603 |
| 4 | jiangly | 3583 |
| 5 | strapple | 3515 |
| 6 | tourist | 3470 |
| 7 | dXqwq | 3436 |
| 8 | Radewoosh | 3415 |
| 9 | Otomachi_Una | 3413 |
| 10 | Um_nik | 3376 |
| Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
| № | Пользователь | Вклад |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 158 |
| 2 | adamant | 152 |
| 3 | Um_nik | 146 |
| 4 | Dominater069 | 144 |
| 5 | errorgorn | 141 |
| 6 | cry | 139 |
| 7 | Proof_by_QED | 136 |
| 8 | YuukiS | 135 |
| 9 | chromate00 | 134 |
| 9 | TheScrasse | 134 |
| Название |
|---|



You forgot about memoization in dfs.
The whole point of using reference variable is memoisation itself
Sorry, idk what is this. Im not c++ guru :( My thought is that linking and unlinking variable is time consuming and not O(1).Because you first allocate space in the heap and create a connection, then cut it off, which gives additional costs both in memory and time. So its causing tle.
Source ?
Auto comment: topic has been updated by sojabhai (previous revision, new revision, compare).
I think it's the fact that $$$dp[x][lastSeen]$$$ is accessed multiple times in the TLE code (even if it's via a reference variable), and it's probably not cache optimised. Replacing the reference variable with just $$$dp[x][lastSeen]$$$ gives the same TLE result — 271896757
Makes sense , Thanks
Auto comment: topic has been updated by sojabhai (previous revision, new revision, compare).