This one has constant comlexity O(1), while an iterator will have at least linear complexity O(n).
While this doesn't make this automatically more efficient for small values, we can optimise this solution by using bit operation for deviding but the compiler already does that for us.
So that means this solutuon needs 4 arthmic operations to execute, while the iterator solution needs at least n arethmic operations, meaning that if n is bigger than 4 the iterator solution is already worse.
The gotcha with this is if you get a negative number.
Failed tests.
This one has constant comlexity O(1), while an iterator will have at least linear complexity O(n).
While this doesn't make this automatically more efficient for small values, we can optimise this solution by using bit operation for deviding but the compiler already does that for us.
So that means this solutuon needs 4 arthmic operations to execute, while the iterator solution needs at least n arethmic operations, meaning that if n is bigger than 4 the iterator solution is already worse.
Damn man you are good
Yup that one should be best practice
I feel this one more performant for very large n, under the assumption that sum() function for iterators goes through n elements.
Good use of bit shifting
Please use spoiler flag next time.
This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
wait,
**0.5will not works well with really big integers...This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
is it
O(n)?this is optimized for cases the array has many duplicate numbers.
btw if there are 1,000,000
i8elements, we can promise that is trueThis is obsolete forum, open issue in this repo: https://github.com/codewars/runner/issues requesting the same.
Loading more items...