Home/ Questions/Q 6668617
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-26T03:03:38+00:00

I just bumped on to this question today and was trying for a solution

  • 0

I just bumped on to this question today and was trying for a solution that is better than O(N) but could not come up with one.

Searched through SO but couldn’t find this question.

Is there any solution better than O(n) or is it a problem that cannot be solved better than that?

My initial thought was Binary Search but again for that you need to sort it which is again >n. I also thought of applying quicksort for just the half of the array to which the search element might belong but again we are making n comparisons initially and discarding the other half only later. Am I getting this right or am I looking at the solution in a wrong direction?

I was trying for a solution in c++ and no javascript’s IndexOf() or C# Array.find() or LINQ’s.

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    Make it parallel. Divide the array in chunks and search in parallel.
    The complexity will be O(n) but running time will be much less. Actually it will be proportional to no. of processors you have.

    You can use Parallel Patterns Library in C++

    • 0