| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | jiangly | 3810 |
| 2 | Benq | 3676 |
| 3 | Kevin114514 | 3655 |
| 4 | maroonrk | 3463 |
| 5 | strapple | 3447 |
| 6 | Um_nik | 3387 |
| 7 | heuristica | 3322 |
| 8 | turmax | 3317 |
| 9 | tourist | 3307 |
| 10 | jiangbowen | 3291 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 156 |
| 2 | nik_exists | 150 |
| 2 | maspy | 150 |
| 4 | Um_nik | 141 |
| 5 | Errichto | 139 |
| 6 | adamant | 137 |
| 7 | AmShZ | 135 |
| 8 | BledDest | 132 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 131 |
| 10 | qwexd | 129 |
| Name |
|---|



your unordered_map got an anti-hash test(unordered_map worst case look time O(n) due to all hashes colliding with each other). And because MS C++ 2017 is a different compiler, so unordered map hashing works a bit different. In whatever way, the three should get timelimit anyways. I recommend you not to use unordered_map in hackable contests or in sites that have system testing afterwards like codeforces.
At least it could have given TLE at the time of contest so i would have changed the unordered_map to map.
Sadly, authors usually don't usually think of anti-hashing tests but hackers do. Here is a really cool blog which helps if you want to use unordered_map.
But here all keys are ints and not int64_t/long longs, so their hashes do not (should not?) collide, so what's the real reason?
Numbers till $$$10^9$$$. At least not all hashes collide, but a lot of them. If numbers were only till $$$10^6$$$ or lower, I guess it was gonna pass.
Yeah, I did not realize that the hash function includes % bucket_count, thank you