As I know, dict uses trees, not hashes. And to find the right size is not difficult. 501x501 will be enough, filling with 0 by default.
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Atanas Banov <[email protected]> wrote: > errr, no. hash lookup is O(1), not log... you are thinking balanced trees > or some such. > also while 2D array will be a bit faster, you will have to deal with proper > sizing and filling default value. > > > On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Terence <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Another point is to use array (2-D list) instead of dict to implement >> cache. this will reduce the time complexity of cache lookup operation from >> O(logN) to O(1) >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "google-codejam" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<google-code%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-code?hl=en. > -- Best regards, Дектярев Михаил -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-codejam" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-code?hl=en.
