title: Is n or nlog(n) better than constant or logarithmic time?
body: <p>In the Princeton tutorial on Coursera the lecturer explains the common order-of-growth functions that are encountered. He says that linear and linearithmic running times are "what we strive" for and his reasoning was that as the input size increases so too does the running time. I think this is where he made a mistake because I have previously heard him refer to a linear order-of-growth as unsatisfactory for an efficient algorithm.</p>
  
  <p>While he was speaking he also showed a chart that plotted the different running times - constant and logarithmic running times looked to be more efficient. So was this a mistake or is this true?</p>