Why my solution for this problem got TL?
Why my solution for this problem got TL?
| № | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3676 |
| 2 | jiangly | 3670 |
| 3 | Kevin114514 | 3657 |
| 4 | maroonrk | 3355 |
| 5 | Um_nik | 3353 |
| 6 | squareOf105 | 3346 |
| 7 | tourist | 3343 |
| 8 | strapple | 3324 |
| 9 | heuristica | 3322 |
| 10 | jiangbowen | 3291 |
| Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
| № | Пользователь | Вклад |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 158 |
| 2 | nik_exists | 150 |
| 2 | maspy | 150 |
| 4 | AmShZ | 143 |
| 4 | Um_nik | 143 |
| 6 | Errichto | 139 |
| 7 | adamant | 137 |
| 8 | BledDest | 134 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 133 |
| 10 | qwexd | 130 |
i am getting TLE on the same test case . My soln : http://codeforces.me/contest/749/submission/23175411
It works O(N) on worst case, so in total it will be O(N * Q * log(N)).
I hear that complexity of lower_bound is O(n) for some cases.
It works O(N) on non-random-access iterators.
With my own binary search
It works O(size), that's why you got tle. Try using references.
Ty mate!!! Lost about day for searching mistake.