sort(v.begin(),v.end(),greater ()); OR sort(v.rbegin(),v.rend()); OR sort(v.begin(),v.end()); reverse(v.begin(),v.end()); All these are the same
# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | jiangly | 4039 |
2 | tourist | 3841 |
3 | jqdai0815 | 3682 |
4 | ksun48 | 3590 |
5 | ecnerwala | 3542 |
6 | Benq | 3535 |
7 | orzdevinwang | 3526 |
8 | gamegame | 3477 |
9 | heuristica | 3357 |
10 | Radewoosh | 3355 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | cry | 169 |
2 | -is-this-fft- | 165 |
3 | atcoder_official | 160 |
3 | Um_nik | 160 |
5 | djm03178 | 157 |
6 | Dominater069 | 156 |
7 | adamant | 153 |
8 | luogu_official | 152 |
9 | awoo | 151 |
10 | TheScrasse | 147 |
sort(v.begin(),v.end(),greater ()); OR sort(v.rbegin(),v.rend()); OR sort(v.begin(),v.end()); reverse(v.begin(),v.end()); All these are the same
Name |
---|
Auto comment: topic has been updated by ShahariarIslam (previous revision, new revision, compare).
ok but i perfer sort(v.rbegin(), v.rend());
Auto comment: topic has been updated by ShahariarIslam (previous revision, new revision, compare).
seek help
They all have a time complexity
O(n log n)
, in the sorting process the first one uses thegreater<int>()
comparator to sort in descending order based on this criterion while the second one uses reverse iterators instead of the comparator. But the third one actually adds a small constant factor because of the reversing, making the time complexity combined ofO(n log n) + O(n)
which is stillO(n log n)
overall but makes the first and the second methods slightly more efficient than it