What is the Big-O of this solution, though?
In the worst case, if we have...
2 elements: we will do a contains() on a set with 0 elements, then an add(), then a contains() on a set with 1 element, then an add().
3 elements: all of the above, plus a contains() on a set with 2 elements, then an add()
Assuming we skip the last add() when we know we've reached the end of the list, worst-case would be calling contains() on N sets of length 0 through N-1, plus calling add() N-1 times.
This is definitely less space-efficient than my solution, because of the set, but is it more time-efficient? What do you think?
I think it depends on how set works under the hood.
At first, because there is only one for loop, one might think it’s only O(n).
But how does the `contains()’ method actually work? I have just read here and it says that set will internally iterate its elements and compare each element to the object passed as parameter.
Another way of making sure that there isn’t another for loop going on behind the scenes is by using a map. Because accessing an item requires O(1) time.(as far as I know)
So it could be that the Set solution is just as memory-efficient as the double-for loop. I'd love to do a benchmark of this.
If you do, please let me know what the results are!
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.