| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | ecnerwala | 3650 |
| 2 | Benq | 3582 |
| 3 | Geothermal | 3570 |
| 3 | orzdevinwang | 3570 |
| 5 | cnnfls_csy | 3569 |
| 6 | tourist | 3565 |
| 7 | maroonrk | 3532 |
| 8 | Radewoosh | 3522 |
| 9 | Um_nik | 3483 |
| 10 | jiangly | 3468 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | maomao90 | 174 |
| 2 | awoo | 164 |
| 3 | adamant | 163 |
| 4 | TheScrasse | 159 |
| 5 | nor | 158 |
| 6 | maroonrk | 156 |
| 7 | -is-this-fft- | 151 |
| 8 | SecondThread | 147 |
| 9 | orz | 146 |
| 10 | pajenegod | 145 |
std::lower_bound vs std::set::lower_bound
I have just discovered, that std::set::lower_bound for larger sets is much-much faster than std::lower_bound.
Can anyone give explanation why does this happen?
Also, use std::set::lower_bound instead of std::lower_bound, I struggled on a problem for like 2 hours because of getting TLE for this.
