One of the drawbacks of most common implementations of the Vector class (or ArrayList, etc. Basically any array-backed expandable list class) is that their remove() operation generally operates in linear time - if you remove an element, you must shift all elements after it one space back to keep the data contiguous. But what if you're using a Vector just to be a list-of-things, where the order of the things is irrelevant? In this case removal can be accomplished in a few simple steps:

• Swap element to be removed with the last element in the array
• Reduce size field by 1. (No need to re-allocate the array, as the deleted item is now beyond the size field and thus not "in" the list any more. The next add() will just overwrite it.)
• (optional) Delete last element to free up its memory. (Not needed in garbage-collected languages.)

This is clearly now a constant-time operation, since only performs a single swap regardless of size. The downside is of course that it changes the order of the data, but if you don't care about the order, that's not a problem.

Could this still be called a Vector? Or is it something different? It has some things in common with "Set" classes in that the order is irrelevant, but unlike a Set it can store duplicate values. (Also most Set classes I know of are backed by a tree or hash map rather than an array.) It also bears some similarity to Heap classes, although without the log(N) percolate steps since we don't care about the order.