3 ms·
> But if you think it is necessarily worse as a practical manner, you have failed to understand the math fully. Congratulations, I don't think one algorithm i
by SamReidHughes 15y ago
> But if you think it is necessarily worse as a practical manner, you have failed to understand the math fully.
Congratulations, I don't think one algorithm is necessarily worse, your entire post was a waste of effort.
I mean seriously you just made a post teaching about how logarithmic constants can be low enough that they don't matter in reply to my post which provided an example of that very thing.
- btilly 15y agoI was just explaining the comment that O(log(n)) approaches O(1) for all practical values of n. If you understood this, then why did you start off your post arguing that O(log(n)) was worse than O(1)? Incidentally comparing a logarithmic lookup to a hash lookup, a lot of nosql solutions use hash tables because O(1) is good, right? For instance look at Apache's Cassandra. By contrast Google's BigTable uses an ordered data structure which is logarithmic. Guess what, if you've used both, BigTable is better. Because the extra log cost is irrelevant for the normal use case, and being ordered reduces the operational cost of things like range searches.
- SamReidHughes 15y agoIt's going to be very hard to tell me how I'm wrong when I agree with everything you're saying.
- sanderjd 15y agoI found the non-argument that you two just had to be interesting, informative, and entertaining. So don't feel too bad about losing the argumentative-agreement battle - it was great while it lasted!