[Python-Dev] Drastically improving list.sort() for lists of strings/ints
Random832
random832 at fastmail.com
Tue Sep 13 13:35:10 EDT 2016
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Tue Sep 13 13:35:10 EDT 2016
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Drastically improving list.sort() for lists of strings/ints
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Drastically improving list.sort() for lists of strings/ints
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016, at 13:24, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Sep 11 2016, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote: > > Tim Peters investigated and empirically determined that an > > O(n*n) binary insort, as he optimized it on real machines, is faster > > than O(n*logn) sorting for up to around 64 items. > > Out of curiosity: is this test repeated periodically on different > architectures? Or could it be that it only ever was true 10 years ago on > Tim's Power Mac G5 (or whatever he used)? Binary insertion sort is still O(n*logn) in comparisons, so it's likely that this is due to short memmoves being sufficiently fast due to cache effects as not to matter. The number might have gotten larger or smaller, though. I wonder if it's something that could be tuned dynamically, at compile time or install time.
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Drastically improving list.sort() for lists of strings/ints
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Drastically improving list.sort() for lists of strings/ints
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list