I wanted to go into details — but it would have been a full 30 minutes. Any suggestion/query is welcome.
# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 3856 |
2 | jiangly | 3747 |
3 | orzdevinwang | 3706 |
4 | jqdai0815 | 3682 |
5 | ksun48 | 3591 |
6 | gamegame | 3477 |
7 | Benq | 3468 |
8 | Radewoosh | 3462 |
9 | ecnerwala | 3451 |
10 | heuristica | 3431 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | cry | 167 |
2 | -is-this-fft- | 162 |
3 | Dominater069 | 160 |
4 | Um_nik | 158 |
5 | atcoder_official | 156 |
6 | Qingyu | 153 |
7 | djm03178 | 152 |
7 | adamant | 152 |
9 | luogu_official | 150 |
10 | awoo | 147 |
I wanted to go into details — but it would have been a full 30 minutes. Any suggestion/query is welcome.
Name |
---|
I don't think your solution can pass the system test. I think it will be TLE. In the worst case, updating the nodes' information can be O(n); So it's O(q*n)? Did I misunderstand? :D
updating will take O(log(n)) per query. Something like:
So, we are building the data structure for LCA incrementally after each query.
For more info check out "Another easy solution in <O(N logN, O(logN)>" section on TC