I wanted to go into details — but it would have been a full 30 minutes. Any suggestion/query is welcome.
# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | jiangly | 3640 |
2 | Benq | 3593 |
3 | tourist | 3572 |
4 | orzdevinwang | 3561 |
5 | cnnfls_csy | 3539 |
6 | ecnerwala | 3534 |
7 | Radewoosh | 3532 |
8 | gyh20 | 3447 |
9 | Rebelz | 3409 |
10 | Geothermal | 3408 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | maomao90 | 173 |
2 | adamant | 164 |
3 | awoo | 161 |
4 | TheScrasse | 160 |
5 | nor | 159 |
6 | maroonrk | 156 |
7 | SecondThread | 152 |
8 | pajenegod | 146 |
9 | BledDest | 144 |
10 | Um_nik | 143 |
I wanted to go into details — but it would have been a full 30 minutes. Any suggestion/query is welcome.
Name |
---|
I don't think your solution can pass the system test. I think it will be TLE. In the worst case, updating the nodes' information can be O(n); So it's O(q*n)? Did I misunderstand? :D
updating will take O(log(n)) per query. Something like:
So, we are building the data structure for LCA incrementally after each query.
For more info check out "Another easy solution in <O(N logN, O(logN)>" section on TC