I am trying to learn analysis of algorithms and I am stuck with relation between asymptotic notation(big O...) and cases(best, worst and average).
I learn that the Big O notation defines an upper bound of an algorithm, i.e. it defines function can not grow more than its upper bound.
At first it sound to me as it calculates the worst case.
I google about(why worst case is not big O?) and got ample of answers which were not so simple to understand for beginner.
I concluded it as follows:
Big O is not always used to represent worst case analysis of algorithm because, suppose a algorithm which takes O(n) execution steps for best, average and worst input then it's best, average and worst case can be expressed as O(n).
Please tell me if I am correct or I am missing something as I don't have anyone to validate my understanding.
Please suggest a better example to understand why Big O is not always worst case.
Big-O?
First let us see what Big O formally means:
In computer science, big O notation is used to classify algorithms
according to how their running time or space requirements grow as the
input size grows.
This means that, Big O notation characterizes functions according to their growth rates: different functions with the same growth rate may be represented using the same O notation. Here, O means order of the function, and it only provides an upper bound on the growth rate of the function.
Now let us look at the rules of Big O:
If f(x) is a sum of several terms, if there is one with largest
growth rate, it can be kept, and all others omitted
If f(x) is a product of several factors, any constants (terms in the
product that do not depend on x) can be omitted.
Example:
f(x) = 6x^4 − 2x^3 + 5
Using the 1st rule we can write it as, f(x) = 6x^4
Using the 2nd rule it will give us, O(x^4)
What is Worst Case?
Worst case analysis gives the maximum number of basic operations that
have to be performed during execution of the algorithm. It assumes
that the input is in the worst possible state and maximum work has to
be done to put things right.
For example, for a sorting algorithm which aims to sort an array in ascending order, the worst case occurs when the input array is in descending order. In this case maximum number of basic operations (comparisons and assignments) have to be done to set the array in ascending order.
It depends on a lot of things like:
CPU (time) usage
memory usage
disk usage
network usage
What's the difference?
Big-O is often used to make statements about functions that measure the worst case behavior of an algorithm, but big-O notation doesn’t imply anything of the sort.
The important point here is we're talking in terms of growth, not number of operations. However, with algorithms we do talk about the number of operations relative to the input size.
Big-O is used for making statements about functions. The functions can measure time or space or cache misses or rabbits on an island or anything or nothing. Big-O notation doesn’t care.
In fact, when used for algorithms, big-O is almost never about time. It is about primitive operations.
When someone says that the time complexity of MergeSort is O(nlogn), they usually mean that the number of comparisons that MergeSort makes is O(nlogn). That in itself doesn’t tell us what the time complexity of any particular MergeSort might be because that would depend how much time it takes to make a comparison. In other words, the O(nlogn) refers to comparisons as the primitive operation.
The important point here is that when big-O is applied to algorithms, there is always an underlying model of computation. The claim that the time complexity of MergeSort is O(nlogn), is implicitly referencing an model of computation where a comparison takes constant time and everything else is free.
Example -
If we are sorting strings that are kk bytes long, we might take “read a byte” as a primitive operation that takes constant time with everything else being free.
In this model, MergeSort makes O(nlogn) string comparisons each of which makes O(k) byte comparisons, so the time complexity is O(k⋅nlogn). One common implementation of RadixSort will make k passes over the n strings with each pass reading one byte, and so has time complexity O(nk).
The two are not the same thing. Worst-case analysis as other have said is identifying instances for which the algorithm takes the longest to complete (i.e., takes the most number of steps), then formulating a growth function using this. One can analyze the worst-case time complexity using Big-Oh, or even other variants such as Big-Omega and Big-Theta (in fact, Big-Theta is usually what you want, though often Big-Oh is used for ease of comprehension by those not as much into theory). One important detail and why worst-case analysis is useful is that the algorithm will run no slower than it does in the worst case. Worst-case analysis is a method of analysis we use in analyzing algorithms.
Big-Oh itself is an asymptotic measure of a growth function; this can be totally independent as people can use Big-Oh to not even measure an algorithm's time complexity; its origins stem from Number Theory. You are correct to say it is the asymptotic upper bound of a growth function; but the manner you prescribe and construct the growth function comes from your analysis. The Big-Oh of a growth function itself means little to nothing without context as it only says something about the function you are analyzing. Keep in mind there can be infinitely many algorithms that could be constructed that share the same time complexity (by the definition of Big-Oh, Big-Oh is a set of growth functions).
In short, worst-case analysis is how you build your growth function, Big-Oh notation is one method of analyzing said growth function. Then, we can compare that result against other worst-case time complexities of competing algorithms for a given problem. Worst-case analysis if done correctly yields the worst-case running time if done exactly (you can cut a lot of corners and still get the correct asymptotics if you use a barometer), and using this growth function yields the worst-case time complexity of the algorithm. Big-Oh alone doesn't guarantee the worst-case time complexity as you had to make the growth function itself. For instance, I could utilize Big-Oh notation for any other kind of analysis (e.g., best case, average case). It really depends on what you're trying to capture. For instance, Big-Omega is great for lower bounds.
Imagine a hypothetical algorithm that in best case only needs to do 1 step, in the worst case needs to do n2 steps, but in average (expected) case, only needs to do n steps. With n being the input size.
For each of these 3 cases you could calculate a function that describes the time complexity of this algorithm.
1 Best case has O(1) because the function f(x)=1 is really the highest we can go, but also the lowest we can go in this case, omega(1). Since Omega is equal to O (the upper bound and lower bound), we state that this function, in the best case, behaves like theta(1).
2 We could do the same analysis for the worst case and figure out that O(n2 ) = omega(n2 ) =theta(n2 ).
3 Same counts for the average case but with theta( n ).
So in theory you could determine 3 cases of an algorithm and for those 3 cases calculate the lower/upper/thight bounds. I hope this clears things up a bit.
https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/learnprogramming/comments/3qtgsh/how_is_big_o_not_the_same_as_worst_case_or_big/
Big O notation shows how an algorithm grows with respect to input size. It says nothing of which algorithm is faster because it doesn't account for constant set up time (which can dominate if you have small input sizes). So when you say
which takes O(n) execution steps
this almost doesn't mean anything. Big O doesn't say how many execution steps there are. There are C + O(n) steps (where C is a constant) and this algorithm grows at rate n depending on input size.
Big O can be used for best, worst, or average cases. Let's take sorting as an example. Bubble sort is a naive O(n^2) sorting algorithm, but when the list is sorted it takes O(n). Quicksort is often used for sorting (the GNU standard C library uses it with some modifications). It preforms at O(n log n), however this is only true if the pivot chosen splits the array in to two equal sized pieces (on average). In the worst case we get an empty array one side of the pivot and Quicksort performs at O(n^2).
As Big O shows how an algorithm grows with respect to size, you can look at any aspect of an algorithm. Its best case, average case, worst case in both time and/or memory usage. And it tells you how these grow when the input size grows - but it doesn't say which is faster.
If you deal with small sizes then Big O won't matter - but an analysis can tell you how things will go when your input sizes increase.
One example of where the worst case might not be the asymptotic limit: suppose you have an algorithm that works on the set difference between some set and the input. It might run in O(N) time, but get faster as the input gets larger and knocks more values out of the working set.
Or, to get more abstract, f(x) = 1/x for x > 0 is a decreasing O(1) function.
I'll focus on time as a fairly common item of interest, but Big-O can also be used to evaluate resource requirements such as memory. It's essential for you to realize that Big-O tells how the runtime or resource requirements of a problem scale (asymptotically) as the problem size increases. It does not give you a prediction of the actual time required. Predicting the actual runtimes would require us to know the constants and lower order terms in the prediction formula, which are dependent on the hardware, operating system, language, compiler, etc. Using Big-O allows us to discuss algorithm behaviors while sidestepping all of those dependencies.
Let's talk about how to interpret Big-O scalability using a few examples. If a problem is O(1), it takes the same amount of time regardless of the problem size. That may be a nanosecond or a thousand seconds, but in the limit doubling or tripling the size of the problem does not change the time. If a problem is O(n), then doubling or tripling the problem size will (asymptotically) double or triple the amounts of time required, respectively. If a problem is O(n^2), then doubling or tripling the problem size will (asymptotically) take 4 or 9 times as long, respectively. And so on...
Lots of algorithms have different performance for their best, average, or worst cases. Sorting provides some fairly straightforward examples of how best, average, and worst case analyses may differ.
I'll assume that you know how insertion sort works. In the worst case, the list could be reverse ordered, in which case each pass has to move the value currently being considered as far to the left as possible, for all items. That yields O(n^2) behavior. Doubling the list size will take four times as long. More likely, the list of inputs is in randomized order. In that case, on average each item has to move half the distance towards the front of the list. That's less than in the worst case, but only by a constant. It's still O(n^2), so sorting a randomized list that's twice as large as our first randomized list will quadruple the amount of time required, on average. It will be faster than the worst case (due to the constants involved), but it scales in the same way. The best case, however, is when the list is already sorted. In that case, you check each item to see if it needs to be slid towards the front, and immediately find the answer is "no," so after checking each of the n values you're done in O(n) time. Consequently, using insertion sort for an already ordered list that is twice the size only takes twice as long rather than four times as long.
You are right, in that you can say certainly say that an algorithm runs in O(f(n)) time in the best or average case. We do that all the time for, say, quicksort, which is O(N log N) on average, but only O(N^2) worst case.
Unless otherwise specified, however, when you say that an algorithm runs in O(f(n)) time, you are saying the algorithm runs in O(f(n)) time in the worst case. At least that's the way it should be. Sometimes people get sloppy, and you will often hear that a hash table is O(1) when in the worst case it is actually worse.
The other way in which a big O definition can fail to characterize the worst case is that it's an upper bound only. Any function in O(N) is also in O(N^2) and O(2^N), so we would be entirely correct to say that quicksort takes O(2^N) time. We just don't say that because it isn't useful to do so.
Big Theta and Big Omega are there to specify lower bounds and tight bounds respectively.
There are two "different" and most important tools:
the best, worst, and average-case complexity are for generating numerical function over the size of possible problem instances (e.g. f(x) = 2x^2 + 8x - 4) but it is very difficult to work precisely with these functions
big O notation extract the main point; "how efficient the algorithm is", it ignore a lot of non important things like constants and ... and give you a big picture
I was doing some reading on logarithms and the rate of growth of the running time of algorithms.
I have, however, a problem understanding the Big-Ω (Big-Omega) notation.
I know that we use it for 'asymptotic lower bounds', and that we can express the idea that an algorithm takes at least a certain amount of time.
Consider this example:
var a = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10];
Somebody chooses a number. I write a program that tries to guess this number using a linear search (1, 2, 3, 4... until it guesses the number).
I can say that the running time of the algorithm would be a function of the size of its input, so these are true (n is the number of elements in an array):
Θ(n) (Big-Theta notation - asymptotically tight bound )
O(n) (Big-O notation - upper bounds)
When it comes to Big-Ω, in my understanding, the algorithm's running time would be Ω(1) since it is the least amount of guesses needed to find the chosen number (if, for example, a player chose 1 (the first item in the array)).
I reckon this bacause this is the defintion I found on KhanAcademy:
Sometimes, we want to say that an algorithm takes at least a certain
amount of time, without providing an upper bound. We use big-Ω
notation; that's the Greek letter "omega."
Am I right to say that this algorithm's running time is Ω(1)? Is it also true that it is Ω(n), if yes - why ?
Big O,Theta or Omega notation all refer to how a solution scales asymptotically as the size of the problem tends to infinity, however, they should really be prefaced with what you are measuring.
Usually when one talks about big O(n) one usually means that the worst case complexity is O(n), however, one does sometimes see it used for typical running times, particularly for heuristics or algorithms which have an element of randomness or are not strictly guaranteed to converge at all.
So here, we are presumably talking about the worst case complexity, which is Theta(n), since it is Theta(n), its also O(n) and Omega(n).
One way to prove a lower bound when its unknown is to say that X is the easiest case for this algorithm, here the best case is O(1), so therefore we can say that the algorithm takes at lease Omega(1) and at most O(n), and Theta is unknown, and that is correct usage, but the aim is to get the highest possible bound for Omega which is still true, and the lowest possible bound for O(n) which is still true. Here Omega(n) is obvious, so its better to say Omega(n) than Omega(1), just as its better to say O(n) rather than O(n^2).
I've been trying to figure this out all day. Some other threads address this, but I really don't understand the answers. There are also many answers that contradict one another.
I understand that an algorithm will never take longer than the upper bound and never be faster than the lower bound. However, I didn't know an upper bound existed for best case time and a lower bound existed for worst case time. This question really threw me in a loop. I can't wrap my head around this... a given run time can have a different upper and lower bound?
For example, if someone asked: "Show that the worst-case running time of some algorithm on a heap of size n is Big Omega(lg(n))". How do you possibly get a lower bound, any bound for that matter, when given a run time?
So, in summation, an algorithm's worst case upper bound can be different than its worst case lower bound? How can this be? Once given the case, don't bounds become irrelevant? Trying to independent study algorithms and I really need to wrap my head around this first.
The meat of my accepted answer to that question is a function whose running time oscillates between n^2 and n^3 depending on whether n is odd. The point that I was trying to make is that sometimes bounds of the form O(n^k) and Omega(n^k) aren't sufficiently descriptive, even though the worst case running time is a perfectly well defined function (which, like all functions, is its own best lower and upper bound). This happens with more natural functions like n log n, which is Omega(n^k) but not O(n^k) for k ≤ 1, and O(n^k) but not Omega(n^k) for k > 1 (and hence not Theta(n^k) regardless of how we choose a constant k).
Suppose you write a program like this to find the smallest prime factor of an integer:
function lpf(n):
for i = 2 to n
if n%i == 0 then return i
If you run the function on the number 10^11 + 3, it will take 10^11 + 2 steps. If you run it on the number 10^11 + 4 it will take just one step. So the function's best-case time is O(1) steps and its worst-case time is O(n) steps.
Big O notation, describes efficiency in runtime iterations, generally based on size of an input data set.
The notation is written in its simplest form, ignoring multiples or additives, but keeping exponential form. If you have an operation of O(1) it is executed in constant time, no matter the input data.
However if you have something such as O(N) or O(log(N)), they will execute at different rates depending on input data.
The high and low bounds describe the largest and least iterations, respectively, that an algorithm can take.
Example: O(N), high bound is largest input data and low bound is smallest.
Extra sources:
Big O Cheat Sheet and MIT Lecture Notes
UPDATE:
Looking at the Stack Overflow question mentioned above, that algorithm is broken into three parts, where it has 3 possible types of runtime, depending on data. Now really, this is three different algorithms designed to handle for different data values. An algorithm is generally classified with just one notation of efficiency and that is of the notation taking the least time for ALL possible values of N.
In the case of O(N^2), larger data will take exponentially longer, and having a smaller number will proceed quickly. The algorithm determines how quickly a data set will be run, yet bounds are given depending on the range of data the algorithm is designed to handle.
I will try to explain it in the quicksort algorithm.
In quicksort you have an array and choose an element as pivot. The next step is to partition the input array into two arrays. The first one will contain elements < pivot and the second one elements > pivot.
Now assume you will apply quicksort on an already sorted list and the pivot element will always be the last element of the array. The result of partition will be an array of size n-1 and an array oft size 1 (the pivot element). This will result in a runtime of O(n*n). Now assume that the pivot element will always split the array in two equal sized array. In every step the array size will be cut in halves. This will result in O(n log n). I hope this example will make this a bit clearer for you.
Another well known sort algorithm is mergesort. Mergesort has always runtime of O(n log n). In mergesort you will cut the array down until only one element is left und will climb up the call stack to merge the one sized arrays and after that merge the array of size two and so on.
Let's say you implement a set using an array. To insert a element you simply put in the next available bucket. If there is no available bucket you increase the capacity of the array by a value m.
For the insert algorithm "there is no enough space" is the worse case.
insert (S, e)
if size(S) >= capacity(S)
reserve(S, size(S) + m)
put(S,e)
Assume we never delete elements. By keeping track of the last available position, put, size and capacity are Θ(1) in space and memory.
What about reserve? If it is implemented like [realloc in C][1], in the best case you just allocate new memory at the end of the existing memory (best case for reserve), or you have to move all existing elements as well (worse case for reserve).
The worst case lower bound for insert is the best case of
reserve(), which is linear in m if we dont nitpick. insert in
worst case is Ω(m) in space and time.
The worst case upper bound for insert is the worse case of
reserve(), which is linear in m+n. insert in worst case is
O(m+n) in space and time.
Whenever I consider algorithms/data structures I tend to replace the log(N) parts by constants. Oh, I know log(N) diverges - but does it matter in real world applications?
log(infinity) < 100 for all practical purposes.
I am really curious for real world examples where this doesn't hold.
To clarify:
I understand O(f(N))
I am curious about real world examples where the asymptotic behaviour matters more than the constants of the actual performance.
If log(N) can be replaced by a constant it still can be replaced by a constant in O( N log N).
This question is for the sake of (a) entertainment and (b) to gather arguments to use if I run (again) into a controversy about the performance of a design.
Big O notation tells you about how your algorithm changes with growing input. O(1) tells you it doesn't matter how much your input grows, the algorithm will always be just as fast. O(logn) says that the algorithm will be fast, but as your input grows it will take a little longer.
O(1) and O(logn) makes a big diference when you start to combine algorithms.
Take doing joins with indexes for example. If you could do a join in O(1) instead of O(logn) you would have huge performance gains. For example with O(1) you can join any amount of times and you still have O(1). But with O(logn) you need to multiply the operation count by logn each time.
For large inputs, if you had an algorithm that was O(n^2) already, you would much rather do an operation that was O(1) inside, and not O(logn) inside.
Also remember that Big-O of anything can have a constant overhead. Let's say that constant overhead is 1 million. With O(1) that constant overhead does not amplify the number of operations as much as O(logn) does.
Another point is that everyone thinks of O(logn) representing n elements of a tree data structure for example. But it could be anything including bytes in a file.
I think this is a pragmatic approach; O(logN) will never be more than 64. In practice, whenever terms get as 'small' as O(logN), you have to measure to see if the constant factors win out. See also
Uses of Ackermann function?
To quote myself from comments on another answer:
[Big-Oh] 'Analysis' only matters for factors
that are at least O(N). For any
smaller factor, big-oh analysis is
useless and you must measure.
and
"With O(logN) your input size does
matter." This is the whole point of
the question. Of course it matters...
in theory. The question the OP asks
is, does it matter in practice? I
contend that the answer is no, there
is not, and never will be, a data set
for which logN will grow so fast as to
always be beaten a constant-time
algorithm. Even for the largest
practical dataset imaginable in the
lifetimes of our grandchildren, a logN
algorithm has a fair chance of beating
a constant time algorithm - you must
always measure.
EDIT
A good talk:
http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Value-Identity-State-Rich-Hickey
about halfway through, Rich discusses Clojure's hash tries, which are clearly O(logN), but the base of the logarithm is large and so the depth of the trie is at most 6 even if it contains 4 billion values. Here "6" is still an O(logN) value, but it is an incredibly small value, and so choosing to discard this awesome data structure because "I really need O(1)" is a foolish thing to do. This emphasizes how most of the other answers to this question are simply wrong from the perspective of the pragmatist who wants their algorithm to "run fast" and "scale well", regardless of what the "theory" says.
EDIT
See also
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1814327
which says
What good is an O(log2(n)) algorithm
if those operations cause page faults
and slow disk operations? For most
relevant datasets an O(n) or even an
O(n^2) algorithm, which avoids page
faults, will run circles around it.
(but go read the article for context).
This is a common mistake - remember Big O notation is NOT telling you about the absolute performance of an algorithm at a given value, it's simply telling you the behavior of an algorithm as you increase the size of the input.
When you take it in that context it becomes clear why an algorithm A ~ O(logN) and an algorithm B ~ O(1) algorithm are different:
if I run A on an input of size a, then on an input of size 1000000*a, I can expect the second input to take log(1,000,000) times as long as the first input
if I run B on an input of size a, then on an input of size 1000000*a, I can expect the second input to take about the same amount of time as the first input
EDIT: Thinking over your question some more, I do think there's some wisdom to be had in it. While I would never say it's correct to say O(lgN) == O(1), It IS possible that an O(lgN) algorithm might be used over an O(1) algorithm. This draws back to the point about absolute performance above: Just knowing one algorithm is O(1) and another algorithm is O(lgN) is NOT enough to declare you should use the O(1) over the O(lgN), it's certainly possible given your range of possible inputs an O(lgN) might serve you best.
You asked for a real-world example. I'll give you one. Computational biology. One strand of DNA encoded in ASCII is somewhere on the level of gigabytes in space. A typical database will obviously have many thousands of such strands.
Now, in the case of an indexing/searching algorithm, that log(n) multiple makes a large difference when coupled with constants. The reason why? This is one of the applications where the size of your input is astronomical. Additionally, the input size will always continue to grow.
Admittedly, these type of problems are rare. There are only so many applications this large. In those circumstances, though... it makes a world of difference.
Equality, the way you're describing it, is a common abuse of notation.
To clarify: we usually write f(x) = O(logN) to imply "f(x) is O(logN)".
At any rate, O(1) means a constant number of steps/time (as an upper bound) to perform an action regardless of how large the input set is. But for O(logN), number of steps/time still grows as a function of the input size (the logarithm of it), it just grows very slowly. For most real world applications you may be safe in assuming that this number of steps will not exceed 100, however I'd bet there are multiple examples of datasets large enough to mark your statement both dangerous and void (packet traces, environmental measurements, and many more).
For small enough N, O(N^N) can in practice be replaced with 1. Not O(1) (by definition), but for N=2 you can see it as one operation with 4 parts, or a constant-time operation.
What if all operations take 1hour? The difference between O(log N) and O(1) is then large, even with small N.
Or if you need to run the algorithm ten million times? Ok, that took 30minutes, so when I run it on a dataset a hundred times as large it should still take 30minutes because O(logN) is "the same" as O(1).... eh...what?
Your statement that "I understand O(f(N))" is clearly false.
Real world applications, oh... I don't know.... EVERY USE OF O()-notation EVER?
Binary search in sorted list of 10 million items for example. It's the very REASON we use hash tables when the data gets big enough. If you think O(logN) is the same as O(1), then why would you EVER use a hash instead of a binary tree?
As many have already said, for the real world, you need to look at the constant factors first, before even worrying about factors of O(log N).
Then, consider what you will expect N to be. If you have good reason to think that N<10, you can use a linear search instead of a binary one. That's O(N) instead of O(log N), which according to your lights would be significant -- but a linear search that moves found elements to the front may well outperform a more complicated balanced tree, depending on the application.
On the other hand, note that, even if log N is not likely to exceed 50, a performance factor of 10 is really huge -- if you're compute-bound, a factor like that can easily make or break your application. If that's not enough for you, you'll frequently see factors of (log N)^2 or (logN)^3 in algorithms, so even if you think you can ignore one factor of (log N), that doesn't mean you can ignore more of them.
Finally, note that the simplex algorithm for linear programming has a worst case performance of O(2^n). However, for practical problems, the worst case never comes up; in practice, the simplex algorithm is fast, relatively simple, and consequently very popular.
About 30 years ago, someone developed a polynomial-time algorithm for linear programming, but it was not initially practical because the result was too slow.
Nowadays, there are practical alternative algorithms for linear programming (with polynomial-time wost-case, for what that's worth), which can outperform the simplex method in practice. But, depending on the problem, the simplex method is still competitive.
The observation that O(log n) is oftentimes indistinguishable from O(1) is a good one.
As a familiar example, suppose we wanted to find a single element in a sorted array of one 1,000,000,000,000 elements:
with linear search, the search takes on average 500,000,000,000 steps
with binary search, the search takes on average 40 steps
Suppose we added a single element to the array we are searching, and now we must search for another element:
with linear search, the search takes on average 500,000,000,001 steps (indistinguishable change)
with binary search, the search takes on average 40 steps (indistinguishable change)
Suppose we doubled the number of elements in the array we are searching, and now we must search for another element:
with linear search, the search takes on average 1,000,000,000,000 steps (extraordinarily noticeable change)
with binary search, the search takes on average 41 steps (indistinguishable change)
As we can see from this example, for all intents and purposes, an O(log n) algorithm like binary search is oftentimes indistinguishable from an O(1) algorithm like omniscience.
The takeaway point is this: *we use O(log n) algorithms because they are often indistinguishable from constant time, and because they often perform phenomenally better than linear time algorithms.
Obviously, these examples assume reasonable constants. Obviously, these are generic observations and do not apply to all cases. Obviously, these points apply at the asymptotic end of the curve, not the n=3 end.
But this observation explains why, for example, we use such techniques as tuning a query to do an index seek rather than a table scan - because an index seek operates in nearly constant time no matter the size of the dataset, while a table scan is crushingly slow on sufficiently large datasets. Index seek is O(log n).
You might be interested in Soft-O, which ignores logarithmic cost. Check this paragraph in Wikipedia.
What do you mean by whether or not it "matters"?
If you're faced with the choice of an O(1) algorithm and a O(lg n) one, then you should not assume they're equal. You should choose the constant-time one. Why wouldn't you?
And if no constant-time algorithm exists, then the logarithmic-time one is usually the best you can get. Again, does it then matter? You just have to take the fastest you can find.
Can you give me a situation where you'd gain anything by defining the two as equal? At best, it'd make no difference, and at worst, you'd hide some real scalability characteristics. Because usually, a constant-time algorithm will be faster than a logarithmic one.
Even if, as you say, lg(n) < 100 for all practical purposes, that's still a factor 100 on top of your other overhead. If I call your function, N times, then it starts to matter whether your function runs logarithmic time or constant, because the total complexity is then O(n lg n) or O(n).
So rather than asking if "it matters" that you assume logarithmic complexity to be constant in "the real world", I'd ask if there's any point in doing that.
Often you can assume that logarithmic algorithms are fast enough, but what do you gain by considering them constant?
O(logN)*O(logN)*O(logN) is very different. O(1) * O(1) * O(1) is still constant.
Also a simple quicksort-style O(nlogn) is different than O(n O(1))=O(n). Try sorting 1000 and 1000000 elements. The latter isn't 1000 times slower, it's 2000 times, because log(n^2)=2log(n)
The title of the question is misleading (well chosen to drum up debate, mind you).
O(log N) == O(1) is obviously wrong (and the poster is aware of this). Big O notation, by definition, regards asymptotic analysis. When you see O(N), N is taken to approach infinity. If N is assigned a constant, it's not Big O.
Note, this isn't just a nitpicky detail that only theoretical computer scientists need to care about. All of the arithmetic used to determine the O function for an algorithm relies on it. When you publish the O function for your algorithm, you might be omitting a lot of information about it's performance.
Big O analysis is cool, because it lets you compare algorithms without getting bogged down in platform specific issues (word sizes, instructions per operation, memory speed versus disk speed). When N goes to infinity, those issues disappear. But when N is 10000, 1000, 100, those issues, along with all of the other constants that we left out of the O function, start to matter.
To answer the question of the poster: O(log N) != O(1), and you're right, algorithms with O(1) are sometimes not much better than algorithms with O(log N), depending on the size of the input, and all of those internal constants that got omitted during Big O analysis.
If you know you're going to be cranking up N, then use Big O analysis. If you're not, then you'll need some empirical tests.
In theory
Yes, in practical situations log(n) is bounded by a constant, we'll say 100. However, replacing log(n) by 100 in situations where it's correct is still throwing away information, making the upper bound on operations that you have calculated looser and less useful. Replacing an O(log(n)) by an O(1) in your analysis could result in your large n case performing 100 times worse than you expected based on your small n case. Your theoretical analysis could have been more accurate and could have predicted an issue before you'd built the system.
I would argue that the practical purpose of big-O analysis is to try and predict the execution time of your algorithm as early as possible. You can make your analysis easier by crossing out the log(n) terms, but then you've reduced the predictive power of the estimate.
In practice
If you read the original papers by Larry Page and Sergey Brin on the Google architecture, they talk about using hash tables for everything to ensure that e.g. the lookup of a cached web page only takes one hard-disk seek. If you used B-tree indices to lookup you might need four or five hard-disk seeks to do an uncached lookup [*]. Quadrupling your disk requirements on your cached web page storage is worth caring about from a business perspective, and predictable if you don't cast out all the O(log(n)) terms.
P.S. Sorry for using Google as an example, they're like Hitler in the computer science version of Godwin's law.
[*] Assuming 4KB reads from disk, 100bn web pages in the index, ~ 16 bytes per key in a B-tree node.
As others have pointed out, Big-O tells you about how the performance of your problem scales. Trust me - it matters. I have encountered several times algorithms that were just terrible and failed to meet the customers demands because they were too slow. Understanding the difference and finding an O(1) solution is a lot of times a huge improvement.
However, of course, that is not the whole story - for instance, you may notice that quicksort algorithms will always switch to insertion sort for small elements (Wikipedia says 8 - 20) because of the behaviour of both algorithms on small datasets.
So it's a matter of understanding what tradeoffs you will be doing which involves a thorough understanding of the problem, the architecture, & experience to understand which to use, and how to adjust the constants involved.
No one is saying that O(1) is always better than O(log N). However, I can guarantee you that an O(1) algorithm will also scale way better, so even if you make incorrect assumptions about how many users will be on the system, or the size of the data to process, it won't matter to the algorithm.
Yes, log(N) < 100 for most practical purposes, and No, you can not always replace it by constant.
For example, this may lead to serious errors in estimating performance of your program. If O(N) program processed array of 1000 elements in 1 ms, then you are sure it will process 106 elements in 1 second (or so). If, though, the program is O(N*logN), then it will take it ~2 secs to process 106 elements. This difference may be crucial - for example, you may think you've got enough server power because you get 3000 requests per hour and you think your server can handle up to 3600.
Another example. Imagine you have function f() working in O(logN), and on each iteration calling function g(), which works in O(logN) as well. Then, if you replace both logs by constants, you think that your program works in constant time. Reality will be cruel though - two logs may give you up to 100*100 multiplicator.
The rules of determining the Big-O notation are simpler when you don't decide that O(log n) = O(1).
As krzysio said, you may accumulate O(log n)s and then they would make a very noticeable difference. Imagine you do a binary search: O(log n) comparisons, and then imagine that each comparison's complexity O(log n). If you neglect both you get O(1) instead of O(log2n). Similarly you may somehow arrive at O(log10n) and then you'll notice a big difference for not too large "n"s.
Assume that in your entire application, one algorithm accounts for 90% of the time the user waits for the most common operation.
Suppose in real time the O(1) operation takes a second on your architecture, and the O(logN) operation is basically .5 seconds * log(N). Well, at this point I'd really like to draw you a graph with an arrow at the intersection of the curve and the line, saying, "It matters right here." You want to use the log(N) op for small datasets and the O(1) op for large datasets, in such a scenario.
Big-O notation and performance optimization is an academic exercise rather than delivering real value to the user for operations that are already cheap, but if it's an expensive operation on a critical path, then you bet it matters!
For any algorithm that can take inputs of different sizes N, the number of operations it takes is upper-bounded by some function f(N).
All big-O tells you is the shape of that function.
O(1) means there is some number A such that f(N) < A for large N.
O(N) means there is some A such that f(N) < AN for large N.
O(N^2) means there is some A such that f(N) < AN^2 for large N.
O(log(N)) means there is some A such that f(N) < AlogN for large N.
Big-O says nothing about how big A is (i.e. how fast the algorithm is), or where these functions cross each other. It only says that when you are comparing two algorithms, if their big-Os differ, then there is a value of N (which may be small or it may be very large) where one algorithm will start to outperform the other.
you are right, in many cases it does not matter for pracitcal purposes. but the key question is "how fast GROWS N". most algorithms we know of take the size of the input, so it grows linearily.
but some algorithms have the value of N derived in a complex way. if N is "the number of possible lottery combinations for a lottery with X distinct numbers" it suddenly matters if your algorithm is O(1) or O(logN)
Big-OH tells you that one algorithm is faster than another given some constant factor. If your input implies a sufficiently small constant factor, you could see great performance gains by going with a linear search rather than a log(n) search of some base.
O(log N) can be misleading. Take for example the operations on Red-Black trees.
The operations are O(logN) but rather complex, which means many low level operations.
Whenever N is the amount of objects that is stored in some kind of memory, you're correct. After all, a binary search through EVERY byte representable by a 64-bit pointer can be achieved in just 64 steps. Actually, it's possible to do a binary search of all Planck volumes in the observable universe in just 618 steps.
So in almost all cases, it's safe to approximate O(log N) with O(N) as long as N is (or could be) a physical quantity, and we know for certain that as long as N is (or could be) a physical quantity, then log N < 618
But that is assuming N is that. It may represent something else. Note that it's not always clear what it is. Just as an example, take matrix multiplication, and assume square matrices for simplicity. The time complexity for matrix multiplication is O(N^3) for a trivial algorithm. But what is N here? It is the side length. It is a reasonable way of measuring the input size, but it would also be quite reasonable to use the number of elements in the matrix, which is N^2. Let M=N^2, and now we can say that the time complexity for trivial matrix multiplication is O(M^(3/2)) where M is the number of elements in a matrix.
Unfortunately, I don't have any real world problem per se, which was what you asked. But at least I can make up something that makes some sort of sense:
Let f(S) be a function that returns the sum of the hashes of all the elements in the power set of S. Here is some pesudo:
f(S):
ret = 0
for s = powerset(S))
ret += hash(s)
Here, hash is simply the hash function, and powerset is a generator function. Each time it's called, it will generate the next (according to some order) subset of S. A generator is necessary, because we would not be able to store the lists for huge data otherwise. Btw, here is a python example of such a power set generator:
def powerset(seq):
"""
Returns all the subsets of this set. This is a generator.
"""
if len(seq) <= 1:
yield seq
yield []
else:
for item in powerset(seq[1:]):
yield [seq[0]]+item
yield item
https://www.technomancy.org/python/powerset-generator-python/
So what is the time complexity for f? As with the matrix multiplication, we can choose N to represent many things, but at least two makes a lot of sense. One is number of elements in S, in which case the time complexity is O(2^N), but another sensible way of measuring it is that N is the number of element in the power set of S. In this case the time complexity is O(N)
So what will log N be for sensible sizes of S? Well, list with a million elements are not unusual. If n is the size of S and N is the size of P(S), then N=2^n. So O(log N) = O(log 2^n) = O(n * log 2) = O(n)
In this case it would matter, because it's rare that O(n) == O(log n) in the real world.
I do not believe algorithms where you can freely choose between O(1) with a large constant and O(logN) really exists. If there is N elements to work with at the beginning, it is just plain impossible to make it O(1), the only thing that is possible is move your N to some other part of your code.
What I try to say is that in all real cases I know off you have some space/time tradeoff, or some pre-treatment such as compiling data to a more efficient form.
That is, you do not really go O(1), you just move the N part elsewhere. Either you exchange performance of some part of your code with some memory amount either you exchange performance of one part of your algorithm with another one. To stay sane you should always look at the larger picture.
My point is that if you have N items they can't disappear. In other words you can choose between inefficient O(n^2) algorithms or worse and O(n.logN) : it's a real choice. But you never really go O(1).
What I try to point out is that for every problem and initial data state there is a 'best' algorithm. You can do worse but never better. With some experience you can have a good guessing of what is this intrisic complexity. Then if your overall treatment match that complexity you know you have something. You won't be able to reduce that complexity, but only to move it around.
If problem is O(n) it won't become O(logN) or O(1), you'll merely add some pre-treatment such that the overall complexity is unchanged or worse, and potentially a later step will be improved. Say you want the smaller element of an array, you can search in O(N) or sort the array using any common O(NLogN) sort treatment then have the first using O(1).
Is it a good idea to do that casually ? Only if your problem asked also for second, third, etc. elements. Then your initial problem was truly O(NLogN), not O(N).
And it's not the same if you wait ten times or twenty times longer for your result because you simplified saying O(1) = O(LogN).
I'm waiting for a counter-example ;-) that is any real case where you have choice between O(1) and O(LogN) and where every O(LogN) step won't compare to the O(1). All you can do is take a worse algorithm instead of the natural one or move some heavy treatment to some other part of the larger pictures (pre-computing results, using storage space, etc.)
Let's say you use an image-processing algorithm that runs in O(log N), where N is the number of images. Now... stating that it runs in constant time would make one believe that no matter how many images there are, it would still complete its task it about the same amount of time. If running the algorithm on a single image would hypothetically take a whole day, and assuming that O(logN) will never be more than 100... imagine the surprise of that person that would try to run the algorithm on a very large image database - he would expect it to be done in a day or so... yet it'll take months for it to finish.