Talk:Sort disjoint sublist: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
(Tough to call!) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:: I expect that swapping through a level of indirection to be less efficient than extracting the values, sorting them, then putting them back, for typical machine architectures and random sorts. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 12:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC) |
:: I expect that swapping through a level of indirection to be less efficient than extracting the values, sorting them, then putting them back, for typical machine architectures and random sorts. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 12:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
::: I wouldn't want to call that either way; depends on too many factors (notably whether cache limits are observed). Only way to know is to measure in a realistic setting. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 16:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:42, 14 February 2011
Adapted from a question/answer here. Note that the solution for languages with pointers might be different than the Python as you may be able to adapt a sort routine to sort via an extra level of indirection. --Paddy3118 06:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- ... Which has just been done by the Go example. Sweet! --Paddy3118 06:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I expect that swapping through a level of indirection to be less efficient than extracting the values, sorting them, then putting them back, for typical machine architectures and random sorts. --Rdm 12:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want to call that either way; depends on too many factors (notably whether cache limits are observed). Only way to know is to measure in a realistic setting. –Donal Fellows 16:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I expect that swapping through a level of indirection to be less efficient than extracting the values, sorting them, then putting them back, for typical machine architectures and random sorts. --Rdm 12:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)