The question What is the most efficient known priority-queue? asks for the most efficient priority-queue. The question is obviously badly phrased: what is the "most efficient" data structure? The question gives no motivation, assumptions on the input nor constraints.

The answer provided by OP talks about a priority queue that is for integers in a certain range. However, the answer mentions nothing about tradeoffs nor does it discuss the claim of being "the most efficient" in any way. Despite the comments given and the time passed, the OP has not clarified his/her question.

As it stands, I think the question should be closed as NARQ.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I agree with your concerns, but I think it can be saved. $\endgroup$
    – Raphael
    Commented Sep 25, 2012 at 20:08

1 Answer 1


I agree that the question as it is was isn't very good (there isn't a single “most efficient” data structure, they all make compromises), but it's clear from the answer what the priority is, so all it takes to save the question in my view is to make the priorities clear in the question. I edited and didn't vote to close.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think the question is now formulated in a better way. However, it is still a broad question! It bothers me that there are no constraints. Should we assume the elements are integers in a specific range? Should the data structure be exact; maybe an error term would help us do better with respect to time/space. I don't have a strong opinion on what should be done with respect to this concern. $\endgroup$
    – Juho
    Commented Sep 30, 2012 at 0:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .