nur_riyad's blog

By nur_riyad, history, 6 weeks ago, In English

### O(n^2) solution link

But if I just erase first three lines of that solution, then solution time changes from 4s+ to 1.2s why?

 
 
 
 
  • Vote: I like it
  • +102
  • Vote: I do not like it

»
6 weeks ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Just wait for the open hacking phase to finish. You will have your answer.

»
6 weeks ago, # |
  Vote: I like it -39 Vote: I do not like it

I think the solution is relying on the third line #pragma GCC optimization ("unroll-loops"). I guess GCC will be able to optimize it so that it's only O(n) (or something similar in run time). I think this actually might be much harder to hack than expected.

  • »
    »
    6 weeks ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +10 Vote: I do not like it

    #pragma GCC optimize("Ofast") #pragma GCC target("avx,avx2,fma") These commands are important, you can check that it passes without "unroll-loops".

  • »
    »
    6 weeks ago, # ^ |
    Rev. 3   Vote: I like it +25 Vote: I do not like it

    Obviously, compiler can't optimize this to $$$O(n)$$$ (see runtime — almost second), it is just very fast $$$O(n^2)$$$. And I bet it won't be hacked — you can check by yourself, this code runs less than a second on maxtest.

    • »
      »
      »
      6 weeks ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      How does this happen?? Why the solution could pass even the worst test case?

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        6 weeks ago, # ^ |
        Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        C++ is fast , especially with this type of operations and #pragma GCC optimize("Ofast"). Without any optimizations it runs 3.5 seconds.

        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          6 weeks ago, # ^ |
          Rev. 3   Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

          Quite a few times in CP, we deal with problems where the naive solution gives O(n^2) time complexity. Owing to the constraints which are usually of the order of 10^5 and 2 seconds, we optimize our code to O(n). But I had this question, if we can solve all of these problems using the O(n^2) naive solution and this optimization.

        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          6 weeks ago, # ^ |
            Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

          I wonder, why this not always work then? what it depends on exactly.

          • »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            6 weeks ago, # ^ |
              Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

            Depends on many things such as type of operations and whether it can be optimized by compiler.

            • »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              6 weeks ago, # ^ |
              Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

              So can this sometimes make the program even slower? Because otherwise I would include it every time and it could probably make the program faster.

  • »
    »
    6 weeks ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +15 Vote: I do not like it

    how can it do it in only O(n)? That is better than most people's optimal solution(which is O(nlog(n))?) Oh, and also, the compiler cannot optimize comparisons in that case. Because it knows that it has to continue through the loops to get the answer(there is no pattern found, or no case where it is useless to continue the loop anymore). If what you are saying is true, then we would have a sort that works in O(n) lol. That would be better than the best sort which works in O(nlog(n)) with any numbers/values/datatype.

»
6 weeks ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

I tried all 6 possible cases with first three line and found that this line "#pragma GCC optimize("Ofast") " must be included for soln to pass

»
6 weeks ago, # |
Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

It is fast because,

  • Code is branchless(CPU can easily predict what comes next)
  • AVX enables vector instruction, which in this case gives 4x boost by combining and calculating 4 ints at same time
  • Ofast also gives significant boost, but why idk
  • »
    »
    6 weeks ago, # ^ |
    Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    how can we actively try to write such code,

    i found the youtube video about

    return condition false * answer + condition true * otherans //zero/false will cancel it

    and instead of if (x>4) return true else return false

    writing return x>4

    • »
      »
      »
      6 weeks ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      Most of the time compiler optimizes branches, mostly try to avoid false*ans1+true*ans2, use ?: instead

»
6 weeks ago, # |
Rev. 3   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

I think the only solution to this is that if O(n) is expected, then make the time limit at most 0.8 second. It's 20 times slower than the intended solution.

  • »
    »
    6 weeks ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Then,it will be very unfair for python users

    • »
      »
      »
      6 weeks ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it -12 Vote: I do not like it

      Limit C++ only then.

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        6 weeks ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it -8 Vote: I do not like it

        I've never understood why all languages have same time limit

    • »
      »
      »
      6 weeks ago, # ^ |
      Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

      Making the n up to $$$3*10^5$$$ is enough. Most problems which its intended solution is $$$O(n)$$$ or $$$O(nlog_2(n))$$$ are $$$3*10^5$$$ which would obviously make that $$$O(n^2)$$$ solution to fail. I wonder why this time it is only $$$10^5$$$...

  • »
    »
    6 weeks ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

    I think increasing max N is typically better.
    Increasing max N 10 times would increase n^2 solution time 100 times.

    • »
      »
      »
      6 weeks ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it -14 Vote: I do not like it

      Probably it will fail Python. The thing that there is a time limit equality among all the languages, must be changed, imho.

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        6 weeks ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        Probably it will fail Python

        Less likely than with decreasing time limit

»
6 weeks ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

I got TLE during the contest(using O(n^2) solution). But using your first 3 lines , it's accepted now.

»
6 weeks ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +9 Vote: I do not like it

From what I see with this pragma code begins to use SSE instructions, so I assume it basically processes four values at a time

»
6 weeks ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

if i use those 3 lines every solution,, can i get advantage all time or not??

»
6 weeks ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

LoL, quite unexpected, but cool!
Turns out you can do order of 10^10 operations in a second on CodeForces servers.

  • »
    »
    6 weeks ago, # ^ |
    Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Not accurate. $$$10^{10}$$$ operations would theoretically take around 1800 ms or more in that problem with the same conditions. The number of operations is specifically in worst case is $$$n*(n-1)/2$$$ which is around $$$5*10^9$$$ operations.

    • »
      »
      »
      6 weeks ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      More or less accurate:
      The number of loop iterations is 5 * 10^9,
      but each loop iteration consists of several operations: ans+=(ll)(a[j]-a[i-1]==j-i+1);
      and then there are also operations to do looping: one increment and one comparison per iteration.

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        6 weeks ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        Oh, yes you are right. So that is two array accesses and one comparison and increment in each operation. You are right!

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        6 weeks ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

        Yes, but in this case compiler uses AVX instruction set to calculate 4 iterations at same time, if you comment #pragma GCC target("avx,avx2,fma") time will jump to 4 seconds.

»
5 weeks ago, # |
Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

pragma added to default template....lol

Also, I wonder how many people lost score on this because of failing to break this....

»
5 weeks ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Also see this problem, the brute-force solution also passed using command-lines.

Command-lines do make your solution faster, it might pass $$$10^{10}$$$ operations within seconds, it's almost impossible to hack because it's about the basic-level optimization.

»
5 weeks ago, # |
  Vote: I like it -10 Vote: I do not like it

i have also used the above concept but was getting tle then i read this blog and used those 3 lines but still i am getting tle

Your code here...
#pragma GCC optimize("Ofast")
#pragma GCC target("avx,avx2,fma")
#pragma GCC optimization ("unroll-loops")
#include<bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
    int i,j,n,t,ans;string s;
    cin>>t;
    while(t--)
    {
        cin>>n;ans=0;cin>>s;
        int a[n+1],p[n+1];
        p[0]=0;
        for(i=1;i<=n;i++)
        {
        a[i]=s[i-1]-'0';
        //if(a[i]==1)
        //ans++;
        p[i]=p[i-1]+a[i];
        }
        for(i=1;i<=n;i++)
        for(j=1;j<=n;j++)
        {
            if(i==j){
            if((p[i]-p[i-1])==i-j+1)
            ans++;}
 
        else if((j-i+1)==(p[j]-p[i-1])&&(i<j))
        ans++;
        }
        cout<<ans<<endl;
    }
}
  • »
    »
    5 weeks ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

    It won't work with any $$$O(n^2)$$$ solution, it needs to be coded in very specific way, so compiler can understand and optimize it.

»
5 weeks ago, # |
  Vote: I like it -21 Vote: I do not like it

I tried the O(n^2) solution. Can someone tell me why am I getting TLE? Submission link