Talk:Sorting algorithms/Cocktail sort with shifting bounds: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(added a topic.) |
m (added highlighting.) |
||
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
==
I did some timings (using the '''REXX''' program entries)
for the Rosetta Code
the ''cocktail sort with shifting bounds'' task.▼
::::::: ''cocktail sort task''
:::::::: <small> versus the </small>
All timings used the same (repeatable) identical set of random integers (by using a ''seed'' for the '''random''' BIF).
The integers were in the range of 0 ──► 100k, with every
Line 18 ⟶ 21:
shifting bounds
times faster than
N a cocktail sort (
════════ ════════════════════════
1k 1.272
Line 27 ⟶ 30:
20k 1.244
════════ ════════════════════════
(
cocktail sort with shifting bounds
For any amount of '''N''' integers <u>already
the timings were identical, and for the most part, the
times used by both sort versions weren't notable.
|
Latest revision as of 13:52, 11 July 2021
timings for cocktail sort vs. cocktail sort with shifting bounds
I did some timings (using the REXX program entries) for the Rosetta Code
- cocktail sort task
- versus the
- cocktail sort with shifting bounds task.
- cocktail sort task
All timings used the same (repeatable) identical set of random integers (by using a seed for the random BIF).
The integers were in the range of 0 ──► 100k, with every other number being negated, using N numbers.
All timing were performed on a moderately fast air─gap PC.
cocktail sort with shifting bounds times faster than N a cocktail sort (‡) ════════ ════════════════════════ 1k 1.272 2k 1.228 4k 1.256 8k 1.251 10k 1.246 20k 1.244 ════════ ════════════════════════ (‡) cocktail sort ÷ by cocktail sort with shifting bounds
For any amount of N integers already in order,
the timings were identical, and for the most part, the
times used by both sort versions weren't notable.
-- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)