622C - Not Equal on a Segment 15943480 It gives TLE on test case number 14!
622C - Not Equal on a Segment 15943480 It gives TLE on test case number 14!
| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3676 |
| 2 | Kevin114514 | 3659 |
| 3 | jiangly | 3640 |
| 4 | turmax | 3450 |
| 5 | tourist | 3382 |
| 6 | strapple | 3360 |
| 7 | Um_nik | 3354 |
| 8 | squareOf105 | 3348 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 3312 |
| 10 | idontwannadothis…e | 3191 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 156 |
| 2 | nik_exists | 151 |
| 3 | maspy | 149 |
| 4 | AmShZ | 145 |
| 5 | Um_nik | 143 |
| 6 | Errichto | 139 |
| 7 | BledDest | 136 |
| 8 | adamant | 135 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 132 |
| 10 | cry | 130 |
| Name |
|---|



A long code without any explanation. Don't be surprised that you don't get help.
EDIT — The next paragraph is bullshit, don't read it.
I have read your code and I think its complexity is O(n·m) because of line:
p=lower_bound(h[x].begin(),h[x].end(),l);Note that
lower_bound()is linear for vectors. Write your own binary search there.http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/algorithm/lower_bound/
Lower bound is O(LogN) for random access containers is what is mentioned here..Is lower_bound really linear for vectors?
No.
Damn. I messed it up with
lower_boundinset. Sorry everyone!Of course it is logarithmic for vectors as they are random-access containers. Did you mean anything else?
lower_bound(x.begin(),x.end(),a)->x.lower_bound(a)That syntax is only true in case the container has lower_bound as a member function. So it's valid for something like sets, but not valid for vectors.
No its not linear. The same got AC with fast I/O and using iterative binary search.
Replace endl with "\n".
And pass vectors by reference in functions
flr()andsr().