I suspect there is a way if you can save by locating the other end of a range of repeated values faster than by iterating through that sublist
Share
Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I suspect there is a way if you can save by locating the other end of a range of repeated values faster than by iterating through that sublist
In general, no. Imagine a list of N duplicates. You would have to make N-1 removals, hence O(N).
If you specify a particular data structure with better than O(1) removal of elements, then there might better way for certain sorts of inputs.
Even if you can efficiently remove a range of elements in O(1), and it takes O(1) time to find a duplicate – imagine a list where there are N/2 pairs of duplicates. You’ll still have to do N/2 searches and remove N/2 ranges, both of which are O(N).
(there’s also a bit of ambiguity as the question title is ‘remove duplicates’, but the body is specific to removing one range)
If the list resulting from your sort has the following representation – each node has a value, and an occurrence count for that, then removing the duplications for one value will trivially set the count to 1 for that node. ( A skip list probably has similar characteristics, assuming a decent garbage collected environment where there’s no cost to reclaiming memory), so that would be O(1) for one duplication. If you need to remove all duplicates from the list, it would still be O(N).