← Media.net Interview Insights
My first instinct was prefix sums plus binary search, which gets you to O(N log N) per query.
First, clarify the problem constraints and define 'closest' (absolute difference). For a single query, use prefix sums and a balanced BST (or sorted list) to find the subarray sum closest to T in O(N log N). For multiple queries, precompute all possible subarray sums (O(N^2)) and sort them; then for each query, use binary search to find the closest sum in O(log N) per query.
Pro tip: Mention the trade-off between preprocessing time and query time: if M is large, O(N^2) preprocessing is acceptable; if M is small, per-query O(N log N) might be better. Also, discuss handling negative numbers and the importance of using a TreeSet or balanced BST for efficient closest-sum queries.
Ask about constraints: N, M, range of numbers (negative?), and definition of 'closest' (absolute difference). Confirm if subarray must be non-empty.
Use prefix sums and a balanced BST (e.g., TreeSet in Java) to find the subarray sum closest to T in O(N log N). Iterate through prefix sums, for each prefix sum s, find the closest value to T - s in the BST.
Precompute all subarray sums in O(N^2) and store them in a sorted array. For each query T, use binary search to find the closest sum in O(log N) per query.
Compare the two approaches based on M. If M is large, precomputation is better; if M is small, per-query might be sufficient. Discuss space-time trade-offs.
Consider empty subarray? Negative numbers? Large N causing O(N^2) memory issues? Discuss alternative data structures like segment trees if needed.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.