The naive binary search is a very efficient algorithm: you take the midpoint of your high and low points in a sorted array and adjust your high or low point accordingly. Then you recalculate your endpoint and iterate until you find your target value (or you don't, of course.)
Now, quite clearly, if you don't use the midpoint, you introduce some risk to the system. Let's say you shift your search target away from the midpoint and you create two sides - I'll call them a big side and small side. (It doesn't matter whether the shift is toward high or low, because it would be symmetrical.) The risk is that if you miss, your search space is bigger than it would be: you've got to search the big side which is bigger. But the reward is that if you hit your search space is smaller.
It occurs to me that the number of spaces being risked vs rewarded is the same, and (without patterns, which I'm assuming there are none) the likelihood of an element being higher and lower than the midpoint is equal. So the risk is that it falls between the new target and the midpoint.
Now because the number of spaces affects the search space, and the search space is measured logrithmically, it seems to me if I used, let's say 1/4 and 3/4 for our search spaces, I've cut the log of the small space in half, where the large space has only gone up in by about .6 or .7.
So with all this in mind: is there a more efficient way of performing a binary search than just using the midpoint?
Let's agree that the search key is equally likely to be at position in the array—otherwise, we'd want to design an algorithm based on our special knowledge of the location. So all we can choose is where to split the array each time. If we choose a number 0 < x < 1 and split the array there, the chance that it's on the left is x and the chance that it's on the right is 1-x. In the first case we shorten the array by a factor of x and in the second by a factor of 1-x. If we did this many times we'd have a product of many of these factors, and so the 'right' average to use here is the geometric mean. In that sense, the average decrease per step is x with weight x and 1-x with weight 1-x, for a total of x^x * (1-x)^(1-x).
So when is this minimized? If this were the math stackexchange, we'd take derivatives (with the product rule, chain rule, and exponent rule), set them to zero, and solve. But this is stackoverflow, so instead we graph it:
You can see that the further you get from 1/2, the worse you get. For a better understanding I recommend information theory or calculus which have interesting and complementary perspectives on this.
Related
I understand the basics of minimax and alpha-beta pruning. In all the literature, they talk about the time complexity for the best case is O(b^(d/2)) where b = branching factor and d = depth of the tree, and the base case is when all the preferred nodes are expanded first.
In my example of the "best case", I have a binary tree of 4 levels, so out of the 16 terminal nodes, I need to expand at most 7 nodes. How does this relate to O(b^(d/2))?
I don't understand how they come to O(b^(d/2)).
O(b^(d/2)) correspond to the best case time complexity of alpha-beta pruning. Explanation:
With an (average or constant) branching factor of b, and a search
depth of d plies, the maximum number of leaf node positions evaluated
(when the move ordering is pessimal) is O(bb...*b) = O(b^d) – the
same as a simple minimax search. If the move ordering for the search
is optimal (meaning the best moves are always searched first), the
number of leaf node positions evaluated is about O(b*1*b*1*...*b) for
odd depth and O(b*1*b*1*...*1) for even depth, or O(b^(d/2)). In the
latter case, where the ply of a search is even, the effective
branching factor is reduced to its square root, or, equivalently, the
search can go twice as deep with the same amount of computation.
The explanation of b*1*b*1*... is that all the first player's moves
must be studied to find the best one, but for each, only the best
second player's move is needed to refute all but the first (and best)
first player move – alpha–beta ensures no other second player moves
need be considered.
Put simply, you "skip" every two level:
O describes the limiting behavior of a function when the argument tends towards a particular value or infinity, so in your case comparing precisely O(b^(d/2)) with small values of b and d doesn't really make sense.
I was wondering what the complexity of a graph search algorithm would be for determining a checkmate in chess in Big O notation.
8 pieces on each side. First move has 16 possibilities for just the pawns alone and another 4 for the knights, second movie has the same amount. After this the list of possibilities grow to an uncomputable level.
The best chess engines in the world use 'most probable' graph searches.
This wikipedia article is very useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity
"Allis also estimated the game-tree complexity to be at least 10123, "based on an average branching factor of 35 and an average game length of 80". As a comparison, the number of atoms in the observable universe, to which it is often compared, is estimated to be between 4×1079 and 1081."
The answer is the algorithm would solve all the possible moves by the remaining chess pieces (N). Since it only goes through each piece once the complexity is O(N) (Linear).
The king has at most eight moves. And it takes constant time to verify if a king is threatened after each move. Plus the case where king stay put (and another piece moves). So it's constant time.
If you just want to check if a given board contains a checkmate, then you could do something like this:
determine the (king)set of squares your king could move to (8 in all directions - fields occupied by your own pieces - borders of field)
iterate over all enemy pieces and determine the squares they attack. If any of those squares are in your kingset, remove them. Maintain a boolean to indicate if your king is under attack.
checkmate if your kingset gets empty and the king is under attack
The number of pieces does play a role, so if you have an arbitrary sized board with n pieces, it does matter. In that case, the bottleneck will be to check for all pieces if they attack a position or not because another piece could block the attack. A simple implementation could do it in quadratic time.
By maintaining the positions of the pieces in a set and optimise it for add() and contains() you could get this down to linear in n (although the size of the board will also influence this) so I guess linear complexity is feasible.
I am writing an iPhone app that needs to calculate the square root of a number about 2000 times every 1/30th of a second. sqrt() works fine on a computer, but the frame rate drops to around 10 FPS on an iPhone or iPad, and I have already optimized the rest of the code. I have heard that this can be sped up dramatically by estimating the square root, but I can not find any code to do this. I only need one or two decimal places of precision. Any suggestions on how to do this, or other ways to speed things up would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Unless you actually need the square root, compare the squared values rather than the raw values and the square root.
Squaring is much faster (and more accurate) than taking a square root, if you only need comparisons. This is the way most games do it.
Do you know the range of values that you are trying to find the square root of? Say you have values ranging from 0 to 10. You can then precalculate an array:
sqrt_val[0] = 0;
sqrt_val[1] = 1;
sqrt_val[2] = // the sqrt of 2
...
sqrt_val[10] = // the sqrt of 10
Then during runtime you take the number that you want the sqrt of, convert that to an integer (so for example 3.123 becomes 3) and use that as an index (3) to look up the precalculated value.
Of course if you want finer resolution you can just increase the number of items in your array.
First off, are you certain that square root is actually the bottleneck? Have you profiled? 2000 square roots every 1/30th of a second actually isn't all that many, even on a cell phone. The ARM documentation quotes 33 cycles for a single-precision square root and 60 cycles for double-precision; a 600mHz processor can do 10 million square roots per second (more if the instruction is pipelined at all).
If you have profiled, and square root really is the bottleneck, you will want to use the NEON vrsqrte.f32 instruction. This instruction is quite fast and gives you the approximate reciprocal square roots of four floating-point numbers simultaneously. You can then use the vmul.f32 instruction to get approximate square roots (though for many uses the reciprocal is more useful than the square root itself).
How accurate do you want your estimate to be? If you know how close you want your estimate to be to the real sqrt the Newton's Method is your friend.
Do you know the range of values that are passed to sqrt? If so you can make up a look up table that is precomputed at startup (or even read from disk at startup depending on what turns out to be faster). Find the closest in the table to your input and you get your estimate.
Maybe this is for you:
Fast inverse square root
If this method doesn't provide the accuracy you need there are also alot of other iterative methods where you can choose more or less precise between speed and accuracy:
Methods of computing square roots
The easiest change you can make on an iPhone is to use sqrtf() instead of sqrt(). Single precision float math is much faster than double precision, especially on devices of 3GS vintage and newer.
If you need the square root to calculate a Pythagoras triangle (sqrt(x*x + y*y)), and both x and y are nonnegative, then a very fast approximation to that is
max(x,y) + min(x,y)*0.333
This has a maximum error of 5.7%. Watch out for branch misprediction in min() and max() though.
A quick Google search turns up all sorts of links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_computing_square_roots#Approximations_that_depend_on_IEEE_representation
http://www.azillionmonkeys.com/qed/sqroot.html
If you have a "normal" positive float or double, not an int, and want to use a table look-up method, you can do two separate table look ups, one for the exponent (re-biased), and one for a few bits of the mantissa (shift and mask bitfield extraction), and then multiply the two table look up results together.
I have read through various papers on the 'Balls and Bins' problem and it seems that if a hash function is working right (ie. it is effectively a random distribution) then the following should/must be true if I hash n values into a hash table with n slots (or bins):
Probability that a bin is empty, for large n is 1/e.
Expected number of empty bins is n/e.
Probability that a bin has k balls is <= 1/ek! (corrected).
Probability that a bin has at least k collisions is <= ((e/k)**k)/e (corrected).
These look easy to check. But the max-load test (the maximum number of collisions with high probability) is usually stated vaguely.
Most texts state that the maximum number of collisions in any bin is O( ln(n) / ln(ln(n)) ).
Some say it is 3*ln(n) / ln(ln(n)). Other papers mix ln and log - usually without defining them, or state that log is log base e and then use ln elsewhere.
Is ln the log to base e or 2 and is this max-load formula right and how big should n be to run a test?
This lecture seems to cover it best, but I am no mathematician.
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~shuchi/courses/787-F07/scribe-notes/lecture07.pdf
BTW, with high probability seems to mean 1 - 1/n.
That is a fascinating paper/lecture-- makes me wish I had taken some formal algorithms class.
I'm going to take a stab at some answers here, based on what I've just read from that, and feel free to vote me down. I'd appreciate a correction, though, rather than just a downvote :) I'm also going to use n and N interchangeably here, which is a big no-no in some circles, but since I'm just copy-pasting your formulae, I hope you'll forgive me.
First, the base of the logs. These numbers are given as big-O notation, not as absolute formulae. That means that you're looking for something 'on the order of ln(n) / ln(ln(n))', not with an expectation of an absolute answer, but more that as n gets bigger, the relationship of n to the maximum number of collisions should follow that formula. The details of the actual curve you can graph will vary by implementation (and I don't know enough about the practical implementations to tell you what's a 'good' curve, except that it should follow that big-O relationship). Those two formulae that you posted are actually equivalent in big-O notation. The 3 in the second formula is just a constant, and is related to a particular implementation. A less efficient implementation would have a bigger constant.
With that in mind, I would run empirical tests, because I'm a biologist at heart and I was trained to avoid hard-and-fast proofs as indications of how the world actually works. Start with N as some number, say 100, and find the bin with the largest number of collisions in it. That's your max-load for that run. Now, your examples should be as close as possible to what you expect actual users to use, so maybe you want to randomly pull words from a dictionary or something similar as your input.
Run that test many times, at least 30 or 40. Since you're using random numbers, you'll need to satisfy yourself that the average max-load you're getting is close to the theoretical 'expectation' of your algorithm. Expectation is just the average, but you'll still need to find it, and the tighter your std dev/std err about that average, the more you can say that your empirical average matches the theoretical expectation. One run is not enough, because a second run will (most likely) give a different answer.
Then, increase N, to say, 1000, 10000, etc. Increase it logarithmically, because your formula is logarithmic. As your N increases, your max-load should increase on the order of ln(n) / ln(ln(n)). If it increases at a rate of 3*ln(n) / ln(ln(n)), that means that you're following the theory that they put forth in that lecture.
This kind of empirical test will also show you where your approach breaks down. It may be that your algorithm works well for N < 10 million (or some other number), but above that, it starts to collapse. Why could that be? Maybe you have some limitation to 32 bits in your code without realizing it (ie, using a 'float' instead of a 'double'), or some other implementation detail. These kinds of details let you know where your code will work well in practice, and then as your practical needs change, you can modify your algorithm. Maybe making the algorithm work for very large datasets makes it very inefficient for very small ones, or vice versa, so pinpointing that tradeoff will help you further characterize how you could adapt your algorithm to particular situations. Always a useful skill to have.
EDIT: a proof of why the base of the log function doesn't matter with big-O notation:
log N = log_10 (N) = log_b (N)/log_b (10)= (1/log_b(10)) * log_b(N)
1/log_b(10) is a constant, and in big-O notation, constants are ignored. Base changes are free, which is why you're encountering such variation in the papers.
Here is a rough start to the solution of this problem involving uniform distributions and maximum load.
Instead of bins and balls or urns or boxes or buckets or m and n, people (p) and doors (d) will be used as designations.
There is an exact expected value for each of the doors given a certain number of people. For example, with 5 people and 5 doors, the expected maximum door is exactly 1.2864 {(1429-625) / 625} above the mean (p/d) and the minimum door is exactly -0.9616 {(24-625) / 625} below the mean. The absolute value of the highest door's distance from the mean is a little larger than the smallest door's because all of the people could go through one door, but no less than zero can go through one of the doors. With large numbers of people (p/d > 3000), the difference between the absolute value of the highest door's distance from the mean and the lowest door's becomes negligible.
For an odd number of doors, the center door is essentially zero and is not scalable, but all of the other doors are scalable from certain values representing p=d. These rounded values for d=5 are:
-1.163 -0.495 0* 0.495 1.163
* slowly approaching zero from -0.12
From these values, you can compute the expected number of people for any count of people going through each of the 5 doors, including the maximum door. Except for the middle ordered door, the difference from the mean is scalable by sqrt(p/d).
So, for p=50,000 and d=5:
Expected number of people going through the maximum door, which could be any of the 5 doors, = 1.163 * sqrt(p/d) + p/d.
= 1.163 * sqrt(10,000) + 10,000 = 10,116.3
For p/d < 3,000, the result from this equation must be slightly increased.
With more people, the middle door slowly becomes closer and closer to zero from -0.11968 at p=100 and d=5. It can always be rounded up to zero and like the other 4 doors has quite a variance.
The values for 6 doors are:
-1.272 -0.643 -0.202 0.202 0.643 1.272
For 1000 doors, the approximate values are:
-3.25, -2.95, -2.79 … 2.79, 2.95, 3.25
For any d and p, there is an exact expected value for each of the ordered doors. Hopefully, a good approximation (with a relative error < 1%) exists. Some professor or mathematician somewhere must know.
For testing uniform distribution, you will need a number of averaged ordered sessions (750-1000 works well) rather than a greater number of people. No matter what, the variances between valid sessions are great. That's the nature of randomness. Collisions are unavoidable. *
The expected values for 5 and 6 doors were obtained by sheer brute force computation using 640 bit integers and averaging the convergence of the absolute values of corresponding opposite doors.
For d=5 and p=170:
-6.63901 -2.95905 -0.119342 2.81054 6.90686
(27.36099 31.04095 33.880658 36.81054 40.90686)
For d=6 and p=108:
-5.19024 -2.7711 -0.973979 0.734434 2.66716 5.53372
(12.80976 15.2289 17.026021 18.734434 20.66716 23.53372)
I hope that you may evenly distribute your data.
It's almost guaranteed that all of George Foreman's sons or some similar situation will fight against your hash function. And proper contingent planning is the work of all good programmers.
After some more research and trial-and-error I think I can provide something part way to to an answer.
To start off, ln and log seem to refer to log base-e if you look into the maths behind the theory. But as mmr indicated, for the O(...) estimates, it doesn't matter.
max-load can be defined for any probability you like. The typical formula used is
1-1/n**c
Most papers on the topic use
1-1/n
An example might be easiest.
Say you have a hash table of 1000 slots and you want to hash 1000 things. Say you also want to know the max-load with a probability of 1-1/1000 or 0.999.
The max-load is the maximum number of hash values that end up being the same - ie. collisions (assuming that your hash function is good).
Using the formula for the probability of getting exactly k identical hash values
Pr[ exactly k ] = ((e/k)**k)/e
then by accumulating the probability of exactly 0..k items until the total equals or exceeds 0.999 tells you that k is the max-load.
eg.
Pr[0] = 0.37
Pr[1] = 0.37
Pr[2] = 0.18
Pr[3] = 0.061
Pr[4] = 0.015
Pr[5] = 0.003 // here, the cumulative total is 0.999
Pr[6] = 0.0005
Pr[7] = 0.00007
So, in this case, the max-load is 5.
So if my hash function is working well on my set of data then I should expect the maxmium number of identical hash values (or collisions) to be 5.
If it isn't then this could be due to the following reasons:
Your data has small values (like short strings) that hash to the same value. Any hash of a single ASCII character will pick 1 of 128 hash values (there are ways around this. For example you could use multiple hash functions, but slows down hashing and I don't know much about this).
Your hash function doesn't work well with your data - try it with random data.
Your hash function doesn't work well.
The other tests I mentioned in my question also are helpful to see that your hash function is running as expected.
Incidentally, my hash function worked nicely - except on short (1..4 character) strings.
I also implemented a simple split-table version which places the hash value into the least used slot from a choice of 2 locations. This more than halves the number of collisions and means that adding and searching the hash table is a little slower.
I hope this helps.
This question already has answers here:
What is a plain English explanation of "Big O" notation?
(43 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
What is Big O notation? Do you use it?
I missed this university class I guess :D
Does anyone use it and give some real life examples of where they used it?
See also:
Big-O for Eight Year Olds?
Big O, how do you calculate/approximate it?
Did you apply computational complexity theory in real life?
One important thing most people forget when talking about Big-O, thus I feel the need to mention that:
You cannot use Big-O to compare the speed of two algorithms. Big-O only says how much slower an algorithm will get (approximately) if you double the number of items processed, or how much faster it will get if you cut the number in half.
However, if you have two entirely different algorithms and one (A) is O(n^2) and the other one (B) is O(log n), it is not said that A is slower than B. Actually, with 100 items, A might be ten times faster than B. It only says that with 200 items, A will grow slower by the factor n^2 and B will grow slower by the factor log n. So, if you benchmark both and you know how much time A takes to process 100 items, and how much time B needs for the same 100 items, and A is faster than B, you can calculate at what amount of items B will overtake A in speed (as the speed of B decreases much slower than the one of A, it will overtake A sooner or later—this is for sure).
Big O notation denotes the limiting factor of an algorithm. Its a simplified expression of how run time of an algorithm scales with relation to the input.
For example (in Java):
/** Takes an array of strings and concatenates them
* This is a silly way of doing things but it gets the
* point across hopefully
* #param strings the array of strings to concatenate
* #returns a string that is a result of the concatenation of all the strings
* in the array
*/
public static String badConcat(String[] Strings){
String totalString = "";
for(String s : strings) {
for(int i = 0; i < s.length(); i++){
totalString += s.charAt(i);
}
}
return totalString;
}
Now think about what this is actually doing. It is going through every character of input and adding them together. This seems straightforward. The problem is that String is immutable. So every time you add a letter onto the string you have to create a new String. To do this you have to copy the values from the old string into the new string and add the new character.
This means you will be copying the first letter n times where n is the number of characters in the input. You will be copying the character n-1 times, so in total there will be (n-1)(n/2) copies.
This is (n^2-n)/2 and for Big O notation we use only the highest magnitude factor (usually) and drop any constants that are multiplied by it and we end up with O(n^2).
Using something like a StringBuilder will be along the lines of O(nLog(n)). If you calculate the number of characters at the beginning and set the capacity of the StringBuilder you can get it to be O(n).
So if we had 1000 characters of input, the first example would perform roughly a million operations, StringBuilder would perform 10,000, and the StringBuilder with setCapacity would perform 1000 operations to do the same thing. This is rough estimate, but O(n) notation is about orders of magnitudes, not exact runtime.
It's not something I use per say on a regular basis. It is, however, constantly in the back of my mind when trying to figure out the best algorithm for doing something.
A very similar question has already been asked at Big-O for Eight Year Olds?. Hopefully the answers there will answer your question although the question asker there did have a bit of mathematical knowledge about it all which you may not have so clarify if you need a fuller explanation.
Every programmer should be aware of what Big O notation is, how it applies for actions with common data structures and algorithms (and thus pick the correct DS and algorithm for the problem they are solving), and how to calculate it for their own algorithms.
1) It's an order of measurement of the efficiency of an algorithm when working on a data structure.
2) Actions like 'add' / 'sort' / 'remove' can take different amounts of time with different data structures (and algorithms), for example 'add' and 'find' are O(1) for a hashmap, but O(log n) for a binary tree. Sort is O(nlog n) for QuickSort, but O(n^2) for BubbleSort, when dealing with a plain array.
3) Calculations can be done by looking at the loop depth of your algorithm generally. No loops, O(1), loops iterating over all the set (even if they break out at some point) O(n). If the loop halves the search space on each iteration? O(log n). Take the highest O() for a sequence of loops, and multiply the O() when you nest loops.
Yeah, it's more complex than that. If you're really interested get a textbook.
'Big-O' notation is used to compare the growth rates of two functions of a variable (say n) as n gets very large. If function f grows much more quickly than function g we say that g = O(f) to imply that for large enough n, f will always be larger than g up to a scaling factor.
It turns out that this is a very useful idea in computer science and particularly in the analysis of algorithms, because we are often precisely concerned with the growth rates of functions which represent, for example, the time taken by two different algorithms. Very coarsely, we can determine that an algorithm with run-time t1(n) is more efficient than an algorithm with run-time t2(n) if t1 = O(t2) for large enough n which is typically the 'size' of the problem - like the length of the array or number of nodes in the graph or whatever.
This stipulation, that n gets large enough, allows us to pull a lot of useful tricks. Perhaps the most often used one is that you can simplify functions down to their fastest growing terms. For example n^2 + n = O(n^2) because as n gets large enough, the n^2 term gets so much larger than n that the n term is practically insignificant. So we can drop it from consideration.
However, it does mean that big-O notation is less useful for small n, because the slower growing terms that we've forgotten about are still significant enough to affect the run-time.
What we now have is a tool for comparing the costs of two different algorithms, and a shorthand for saying that one is quicker or slower than the other. Big-O notation can be abused which is a shame as it is imprecise enough already! There are equivalent terms for saying that a function grows less quickly than another, and that two functions grow at the same rate.
Oh, and do I use it? Yes, all the time - when I'm figuring out how efficient my code is it gives a great 'back-of-the-envelope- approximation to the cost.
The "Intuitition" behind Big-O
Imagine a "competition" between two functions over x, as x approaches infinity: f(x) and g(x).
Now, if from some point on (some x) one function always has a higher value then the other, then let's call this function "faster" than the other.
So, for example, if for every x > 100 you see that f(x) > g(x), then f(x) is "faster" than g(x).
In this case we would say g(x) = O(f(x)). f(x) poses a sort of "speed limit" of sorts for g(x), since eventually it passes it and leaves it behind for good.
This isn't exactly the definition of big-O notation, which also states that f(x) only has to be larger than C*g(x) for some constant C (which is just another way of saying that you can't help g(x) win the competition by multiplying it by a constant factor - f(x) will always win in the end). The formal definition also uses absolute values. But I hope I managed to make it intuitive.
It may also be worth considering that the complexity of many algorithms is based on more than one variable, particularly in multi-dimensional problems. For example, I recently had to write an algorithm for the following. Given a set of n points, and m polygons, extract all the points that lie in any of the polygons. The complexity is based around two known variables, n and m, and the unknown of how many points are in each polygon. The big O notation here is quite a bit more involved than O(f(n)) or even O(f(n) + g(m)).
Big O is good when you are dealing with large numbers of homogenous items, but don't expect this to always be the case.
It is also worth noting that the actual number of iterations over the data is often dependent on the data. Quicksort is usually quick, but give it presorted data and it slows down. My points and polygons alogorithm ended up quite fast, close to O(n + (m log(m)), based on prior knowledge of how the data was likely to be organised and the relative sizes of n and m. It would fall down badly on randomly organised data of different relative sizes.
A final thing to consider is that there is often a direct trade off between the speed of an algorithm and the amount of space it uses. Pigeon hole sorting is a pretty good example of this. Going back to my points and polygons, lets say that all my polygons were simple and quick to draw, and I could draw them filled on screen, say in blue, in a fixed amount of time each. So if I draw my m polygons on a black screen it would take O(m) time. To check if any of my n points was in a polygon, I simply check whether the pixel at that point is green or black. So the check is O(n), and the total analysis is O(m + n). Downside of course is that I need near infinite storage if I'm dealing with real world coordinates to millimeter accuracy.... ...ho hum.
It may also be worth considering amortized time, rather than just worst case. This means, for example, that if you run the algorithm n times, it will be O(1) on average, but it might be worse sometimes.
A good example is a dynamic table, which is basically an array that expands as you add elements to it. A naïve implementation would increase the array's size by 1 for each element added, meaning that all the elements need to be copied every time a new one is added. This would result in a O(n2) algorithm if you were concatenating a series of arrays using this method. An alternative is to double the capacity of the array every time you need more storage. Even though appending is an O(n) operation sometimes, you will only need to copy O(n) elements for every n elements added, so the operation is O(1) on average. This is how things like StringBuilder or std::vector are implemented.
What is Big O notation?
Big O notation is a method of expressing the relationship between many steps an algorithm will require related to the size of the input data. This is referred to as the algorithmic complexity. For example sorting a list of size N using Bubble Sort takes O(N^2) steps.
Do I use Big O notation?
I do use Big O notation on occasion to convey algorithmic complexity to fellow programmers. I use the underlying theory (e.g. Big O analysis techniques) all of the time when I think about what algorithms to use.
Concrete Examples?
I have used the theory of complexity analysis to create algorithms for efficient stack data structures which require no memory reallocation, and which support average time of O(N) for indexing. I have used Big O notation to explain the algorithm to other people. I have also used complexity analysis to understand when linear time sorting O(N) is possible.
From Wikipedia.....
Big O notation is useful when analyzing algorithms for efficiency. For example, the time (or the number of steps) it takes to complete a problem of size n might be found to be T(n) = 4n² − 2n + 2.
As n grows large, the n² term will come to dominate, so that all other terms can be neglected — for instance when n = 500, the term 4n² is 1000 times as large as the 2n term. Ignoring the latter would have negligible effect on the expression's value for most purposes.
Obviously I have never used it..
You should be able to evaluate an algorithm's complexity. This combined with a knowledge of how many elements it will take can help you to determine if it is ill suited for its task.
It says how many iterations an algorithm has in the worst case.
to search for an item in an list, you can traverse the list until you got the item. In the worst case, the item is in the last place.
Lets say there are n items in the list. In the worst case you take n iterations. In the Big O notiation it is O(n).
It says factualy how efficient an algorithm is.