I think he meant the time complexity of search operation on a hash table is O(1) and not for the solution.
Well that is quite confusing. Atleast on my part it is. People report the solution's complexity with subparts to prove some point.
But just pointing complexity of just 1 sub part and not talking about whole algo/solution is somewhat unusual.
Also the conclusion doesn't matches with any content in description.
The base of conclusion should be discussed in opening statements.
Are you sure you want to hide this comment? It will become hidden in your post, but will still be visible via the comment's permalink.
Hide child comments as well
Confirm
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I think he meant the time complexity of search operation on a hash table is O(1) and not for the solution.
Well that is quite confusing. Atleast on my part it is.
People report the solution's complexity with subparts to prove some point.
But just pointing complexity of just 1 sub part and not talking about whole algo/solution is somewhat unusual.
Also the conclusion doesn't matches with any content in description.
The base of conclusion should be discussed in opening statements.