• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Why is indexOfObjectIdenticalTo: *far* faster than indexOfObject: ?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why is indexOfObjectIdenticalTo: *far* faster than indexOfObject: ?


  • Subject: Re: Why is indexOfObjectIdenticalTo: *far* faster than indexOfObject: ?
  • From: email@hidden (Heinrich Giesen)
  • Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:27:13 +0100


On 23.12.2004, at 15:02, Aurélien Hugelé wrote:

IMO indexOfObject is just Olog(n)
no, it is O(n)
because it needs full traversal of
the array
and because of the sequential search it is O(n).
A binary search is O( log(N) ), hashing is something like O(1).

if the searched object is the last one.
No.
The O-Notation is usually not interested in worst case scenarios.

--
Heinrich Giesen
email: email@hidden


 _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:

This email sent to email@hidden

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Why is indexOfObjectIdenticalTo: *far* faster than indexOfObject: ?
      • From: Aurélien Hugelé <email@hidden>
  • Prev by Date: Re: Why is indexOfObjectIdenticalTo: *far* faster than indexOfObject: ?
  • Next by Date: Re: More authorization woes, the methods giving me trouble
  • Previous by thread: [OT] [ANN] Alternative object serialization format
  • Next by thread: Re: Why is indexOfObjectIdenticalTo: *far* faster than indexOfObject: ?
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread