Re: comparison of sorting algorithms
From: CBFalconer (cbfalconer_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/14/04
- Next message: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: Aspiring highest-order programmer"
- Previous message: CBFalconer: "Re: which language?"
- In reply to: Dan Tex1: "Re: comparison of sorting algorithms"
- Next in thread: Peter Ammon: "Re: comparison of sorting algorithms"
- Reply: Peter Ammon: "Re: comparison of sorting algorithms"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 05:11:56 GMT
Dan Tex1 wrote:
>
... snip ...
>
> I tested a hybrid, non-recursive quicksort that uses insertion
> sort as partitions of data to be sorted become smaller. I tried
> it with different types of data in all sorts of different
> starting orders. I tried small data sets and large ones ( many
> megabytes of data, files 30, 40 MB and larger ). I found that
> it worked great for pretty much eveything.
There is always an input that will make it run in O(N*N). See:
SOFTWARE—PRACTICE AND EXPERIENCE, VOL. 29(0), 1–4 (0 1999)
A Killer Adversary for Quicksort
M. D. MCILROY
-- Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
- Next message: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: Aspiring highest-order programmer"
- Previous message: CBFalconer: "Re: which language?"
- In reply to: Dan Tex1: "Re: comparison of sorting algorithms"
- Next in thread: Peter Ammon: "Re: comparison of sorting algorithms"
- Reply: Peter Ammon: "Re: comparison of sorting algorithms"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|