I was solving this problem and after I solved it by myself I decided to implement editorial's solution. Strangely my first submission was really slow 55982450, but after changing the order of dimensions it got 5x faster 55999256.
№ | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 4009 |
2 | jiangly | 3773 |
3 | Radewoosh | 3646 |
4 | ecnerwala | 3624 |
5 | jqdai0815 | 3620 |
5 | Benq | 3620 |
7 | orzdevinwang | 3612 |
8 | Geothermal | 3569 |
8 | cnnfls_csy | 3569 |
10 | gyh20 | 3447 |
Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
№ | Пользователь | Вклад |
---|---|---|
1 | awoo | 161 |
2 | maomao90 | 160 |
3 | nor | 157 |
4 | atcoder_official | 156 |
4 | cry | 156 |
6 | -is-this-fft- | 155 |
7 | maroonrk | 154 |
8 | adamant | 153 |
9 | Um_nik | 151 |
10 | djm03178 | 146 |
I was solving this problem and after I solved it by myself I decided to implement editorial's solution. Strangely my first submission was really slow 55982450, but after changing the order of dimensions it got 5x faster 55999256.
Название |
---|
There was a blog before where that happened before, and the reason was because of cache. When storing a multi-dimensional array in a more cache-friendly order, you will get better performance.
I've noticed this specifically for sparse tables. Having st[j][i] store the 2^j-th ancestor of i is an order of magnitude faster than st[i][j].
Nice one, I've never thought about this before. It makes sense. I will consider this next time I implement sparse table.