| № | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3792 |
| 2 | VivaciousAubergine | 3647 |
| 3 | Kevin114514 | 3611 |
| 4 | jiangly | 3583 |
| 5 | strapple | 3515 |
| 6 | tourist | 3470 |
| 7 | Radewoosh | 3415 |
| 8 | Um_nik | 3376 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 3361 |
| 10 | XVIII | 3345 |
| Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
| № | Пользователь | Вклад |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 162 |
| 2 | adamant | 148 |
| 3 | Um_nik | 146 |
| 4 | Dominater069 | 143 |
| 5 | errorgorn | 141 |
| 6 | cry | 138 |
| 7 | Proof_by_QED | 136 |
| 8 | YuukiS | 135 |
| 9 | chromate00 | 134 |
| 10 | soullless | 133 |
Hello Codeforces!
I was solving this problem and came up with an approach using set. I made submission but got TLE. If I am correct, time complexity of this submission is nlogn as total number of insert/erase operations in set is O(n) and logn for each upper_bound.
I know this approach is not the best one but considering constraints given in the problem, this should get an AC.
Try replacing
upper_bound(all(st0), p)withst0.upper_bound(p).After this modification the code still TLEs, but this time on Test Case 11 instead of Test Case 10. I'm curious though, why did this change make the code faster?
I used
sync_with_stdio(false); cin.tie(nullptr)and it got AC.Thanks dorijanlendvaj as my solution got AC. As I understood, using upper_bound requires iterators to be incremented randomly which is O(n) in sets. But set.upper_bound does increment iterators by 1 and uses BST like search so is logn.