there was actually an article recently that touched on the subject mentioned by Serhii Sakal dev.to/_codingblocks/when-is-an-ar...
I was wondering, why not just use an object instead of an array?
let's take a simple example, where you have something like this
consta=[1,2];a[1000]=1000;console.log(a);
and look at the size of a.
even with your example, the created lookup array is bigger than the given array, so you're using more memory than needed.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
ATM I see 2 proposals for JS, here's another one taking advantage of the fact that JS arrays are sparse:
No need for fancy hash structures (because arrays in javascript are already hashes).
Yes, you could,
but if you look into lookup array, and imagen
k = -1
,you will create an array with a lot of empty
lookup.length === 16
now, for example, we have input some array with big numbers
lookup.length > max.number in inList
So… you are saying that having very big sequence of empty space is a problem.
Can you explain why is that a problem?
There no such a big problem now,
it just my opinion,
but as suggested my friend
anyway, it's better using
new Map || new Set
for better performance.jsperf.com/hashtable-vs-array
Here is my O(N) solution using Set:
You should move line:
visitedNumbers.add(number);
after the if clause (otherwise the sums like 4+4=8 will be counted)
A compare i made for the Set vs HashTable
jsperf.com/add-to-k
there was actually an article recently that touched on the subject mentioned by Serhii Sakal dev.to/_codingblocks/when-is-an-ar...
I was wondering, why not just use an object instead of an array?
let's take a simple example, where you have something like this
and look at the size of a.
even with your example, the created lookup array is bigger than the given array, so you're using more memory than needed.