№ | 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 |
Название |
---|
Arrays.sort use Quick Sort (Worst case complexity of O(n^2)) when passing an array of primitive values, and Merge Sort (Worst case complexity of O(n log(n))) when using an array of object references.
I assume the problem has got some anti-tests against inefficient sorting.
Java sorts primitive types by quick sort which is O(N^2) in the worst case, while it sorts Objects in O(nlogn) using merge sort I think.
Learn to read the API documentation (for your own good).