Off-by-one on range boundaries
Wrong move: Loop endpoints miss first/last candidate.
Usually fails on: Fails on minimal arrays and exact-boundary answers.
Fix: Re-derive loops from inclusive/exclusive ranges before coding.
Build confidence with an intuition-first walkthrough focused on array fundamentals.
You are given an array of strings names, and an array heights that consists of distinct positive integers. Both arrays are of length n.
For each index i, names[i] and heights[i] denote the name and height of the ith person.
Return names sorted in descending order by the people's heights.
Example 1:
Input: names = ["Mary","John","Emma"], heights = [180,165,170] Output: ["Mary","Emma","John"] Explanation: Mary is the tallest, followed by Emma and John.
Example 2:
Input: names = ["Alice","Bob","Bob"], heights = [155,185,150] Output: ["Bob","Alice","Bob"] Explanation: The first Bob is the tallest, followed by Alice and the second Bob.
Constraints:
n == names.length == heights.length1 <= n <= 1031 <= names[i].length <= 201 <= heights[i] <= 105names[i] consists of lower and upper case English letters.heights are distinct.Problem summary: You are given an array of strings names, and an array heights that consists of distinct positive integers. Both arrays are of length n. For each index i, names[i] and heights[i] denote the name and height of the ith person. Return names sorted in descending order by the people's heights.
Start with the most direct exhaustive search. That gives a correctness anchor before optimizing.
Pattern signal: Array · Hash Map
["Mary","John","Emma"] [180,165,170]
["Alice","Bob","Bob"] [155,185,150]
sort-array-by-increasing-frequency)sort-the-students-by-their-kth-score)Source-backed implementations are provided below for direct study and interview prep.
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2418: Sort the People
class Solution {
public String[] sortPeople(String[] names, int[] heights) {
int n = names.length;
Integer[] idx = new Integer[n];
Arrays.setAll(idx, i -> i);
Arrays.sort(idx, (i, j) -> heights[j] - heights[i]);
String[] ans = new String[n];
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
ans[i] = names[idx[i]];
}
return ans;
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2418: Sort the People
func sortPeople(names []string, heights []int) (ans []string) {
n := len(names)
idx := make([]int, n)
for i := range idx {
idx[i] = i
}
sort.Slice(idx, func(i, j int) bool { return heights[idx[j]] < heights[idx[i]] })
for _, i := range idx {
ans = append(ans, names[i])
}
return
}
# Accepted solution for LeetCode #2418: Sort the People
class Solution:
def sortPeople(self, names: List[str], heights: List[int]) -> List[str]:
idx = list(range(len(heights)))
idx.sort(key=lambda i: -heights[i])
return [names[i] for i in idx]
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2418: Sort the People
impl Solution {
pub fn sort_people(names: Vec<String>, heights: Vec<i32>) -> Vec<String> {
let mut combine: Vec<(String, i32)> = names.into_iter().zip(heights.into_iter()).collect();
combine.sort_by(|a, b| b.1.cmp(&a.1));
combine.iter().map(|s| s.0.clone()).collect()
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2418: Sort the People
function sortPeople(names: string[], heights: number[]): string[] {
const n = names.length;
const idx = new Array(n);
for (let i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
idx[i] = i;
}
idx.sort((i, j) => heights[j] - heights[i]);
const ans: string[] = [];
for (const i of idx) {
ans.push(names[i]);
}
return ans;
}
Use this to step through a reusable interview workflow for this problem.
Two nested loops check every pair or subarray. The outer loop fixes a starting point, the inner loop extends or searches. For n elements this gives up to n²/2 operations. No extra space, but the quadratic time is prohibitive for large inputs.
Most array problems have an O(n²) brute force (nested loops) and an O(n) optimal (single pass with clever state tracking). The key is identifying what information to maintain as you scan: a running max, a prefix sum, a hash map of seen values, or two pointers.
Review these before coding to avoid predictable interview regressions.
Wrong move: Loop endpoints miss first/last candidate.
Usually fails on: Fails on minimal arrays and exact-boundary answers.
Fix: Re-derive loops from inclusive/exclusive ranges before coding.
Wrong move: Zero-count keys stay in map and break distinct/count constraints.
Usually fails on: Window/map size checks are consistently off by one.
Fix: Delete keys when count reaches zero.