I was solving this problem and after I solved it by myself I decided to implement editorial's solution. Strangely my first submission was really slow 55982450, but after changing the order of dimensions it got 5x faster 55999256.
# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | ecnerwala | 3649 |
2 | Benq | 3581 |
3 | orzdevinwang | 3570 |
4 | Geothermal | 3569 |
4 | cnnfls_csy | 3569 |
6 | tourist | 3565 |
7 | maroonrk | 3531 |
8 | Radewoosh | 3521 |
9 | Um_nik | 3482 |
10 | jiangly | 3468 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | maomao90 | 174 |
2 | awoo | 164 |
3 | adamant | 161 |
4 | TheScrasse | 159 |
5 | nor | 158 |
6 | maroonrk | 156 |
7 | -is-this-fft- | 152 |
8 | SecondThread | 147 |
9 | orz | 146 |
10 | pajenegod | 145 |
I was solving this problem and after I solved it by myself I decided to implement editorial's solution. Strangely my first submission was really slow 55982450, but after changing the order of dimensions it got 5x faster 55999256.
Name |
---|
There was a blog before where that happened before, and the reason was because of cache. When storing a multi-dimensional array in a more cache-friendly order, you will get better performance.
I've noticed this specifically for sparse tables. Having st[j][i] store the 2^j-th ancestor of i is an order of magnitude faster than st[i][j].
Nice one, I've never thought about this before. It makes sense. I will consider this next time I implement sparse table.