# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 3856 |
2 | jiangly | 3747 |
3 | orzdevinwang | 3706 |
4 | jqdai0815 | 3682 |
5 | ksun48 | 3591 |
6 | gamegame | 3477 |
7 | Benq | 3468 |
8 | Radewoosh | 3462 |
9 | ecnerwala | 3451 |
10 | heuristica | 3431 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | cry | 167 |
2 | -is-this-fft- | 162 |
3 | Dominater069 | 160 |
4 | Um_nik | 158 |
5 | atcoder_official | 157 |
6 | Qingyu | 155 |
7 | djm03178 | 151 |
7 | adamant | 151 |
9 | luogu_official | 150 |
10 | awoo | 147 |
Name |
---|
I think your recursion calls itself too much if you do it all in one go -
depee(10000000)
would calldepee(9999999)
which callsdepee(9999998)
...depee(0)
, and the program consumes alot of memory to keep track of all this recursion. Your second submission avoids this issue. Whendepee(n)
is called, it callsdepee(n-1)
which was previously solved, and thus fewer recursive calls need to be kept track of at a time.a great example why to use bottom-up if can(which we can here)
Thanks for your explanation, I get it now.