# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | jiangly | 3898 |
2 | tourist | 3840 |
3 | orzdevinwang | 3706 |
4 | ksun48 | 3691 |
5 | jqdai0815 | 3682 |
6 | ecnerwala | 3525 |
7 | gamegame | 3477 |
8 | Benq | 3468 |
9 | Ormlis | 3381 |
10 | maroonrk | 3379 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | cry | 168 |
2 | -is-this-fft- | 165 |
3 | Dominater069 | 161 |
4 | Um_nik | 159 |
4 | atcoder_official | 159 |
6 | djm03178 | 157 |
7 | adamant | 153 |
8 | luogu_official | 151 |
9 | awoo | 149 |
10 | TheScrasse | 146 |
Name |
---|
Arrays.sort use Quick Sort (Worst case complexity of O(n^2)) when passing an array of primitive values, and Merge Sort (Worst case complexity of O(n log(n))) when using an array of object references.
I assume the problem has got some anti-tests against inefficient sorting.
Java sorts primitive types by quick sort which is O(N^2) in the worst case, while it sorts Objects in O(nlogn) using merge sort I think.
Learn to read the API documentation (for your own good).