Ad
  • Custom User Avatar

    True, wasn't really thinking of using a method like this in a huge program or O(n) at all.
    If the array was never very long than reallocating wouldn't be all that bad.

  • Custom User Avatar

    Also, no need for 'else' statement after 'return' statement

  • Custom User Avatar

    You just turned a O(n) solution into a O(nlgn) solution :p

  • Default User Avatar

    You are correct, this solution does not change the big-O complexity. It is still O(N). I am sorry if this solution feels too small an improvement. I made a fork of this that is actually in O(sqrt(N)) time.

  • Default User Avatar

    Well, I don't think the shortcut affects the big-O complexity anyhow. For the worst scenario in both cases, it still equals O(n). But, I appreciate your contribution and see the improvement on the for loop you've made.

  • Default User Avatar

    Test case for 182 is wrong, should be {8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20}.

    I'd also argue that the description should make it clearer that maxConsecutiveSum(2) should be {} instead of {2}. In my opinion, the sum of a single element array is a valid concept.