[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: penguinplay@sunsite.auc.dk*Subject*: Re: Sv: A little more exact specification of the hash-table*From*: Christian Reiniger <warewolf@mayn.de>*Date*: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 03:53:24 +0200*Reply-To*: penguinplay@sunsite.auc.dk*Reply-To*: warewolf@mayn.de

Christian Reiniger wrote: >>I hadn't thought of that. It's not exactly O(1), though, but rather O(c) >>where c is a constant. Ie, constant-time performance. > >i.e. O(1) ;) >The O notation always means "in the order of ...", i.e. >O(1) is constant (any constant, no matter how big), >O(n) is linear (i.e. 1*n or 1000000000*n, doesn't matter) > >etc. Correction: the above is a bad explanation ;) The O notation describes how something (usually processing time) roughly behaves depending on a value n (usually input size). Thus, O(1) means processing time is independent from the input size, constant O(n) means processing time increases linearly with the input size O(n^2) means ... increases quadratically with the input size etc. That's the *only* thing the O notation expresses. Christian -- Drive A: not responding...Formatting C: instead

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Sv: A little more exact specification of the hash-table** - Next by Date:
**Hmm...** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Sv: A little more exact specification of the hash-table** - Next by thread:
**Sv: Sv: A little more exact specification of the hash-table** - Index(es):