Why my solution for this problem got TL?
№ | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 3690 |
2 | jiangly | 3647 |
3 | Benq | 3581 |
4 | orzdevinwang | 3570 |
5 | Geothermal | 3569 |
5 | cnnfls_csy | 3569 |
7 | Radewoosh | 3509 |
8 | ecnerwala | 3486 |
9 | jqdai0815 | 3474 |
10 | gyh20 | 3447 |
Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
№ | Пользователь | Вклад |
---|---|---|
1 | maomao90 | 174 |
2 | awoo | 164 |
3 | adamant | 163 |
4 | TheScrasse | 160 |
5 | nor | 158 |
6 | maroonrk | 156 |
7 | -is-this-fft- | 152 |
8 | orz | 146 |
9 | pajenegod | 145 |
9 | SecondThread | 145 |
Why my solution for this problem got TL?
Название |
---|
i am getting TLE on the same test case . My soln : http://codeforces.com/contest/749/submission/23175411
It works O(N) on worst case, so in total it will be O(N * Q * log(N)).
I hear that complexity of lower_bound is O(n) for some cases.
It works O(N) on non-random-access iterators.
With my own binary search
It works O(size), that's why you got tle. Try using references.
Ty mate!!! Lost about day for searching mistake.