| № | 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 | 152 |
| 10 | djm03178 | 146 |
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.