Talk:Sorting algorithms/Cocktail sort with shifting bounds: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (changed whitespace in talk section name.) |
m (added highlighting.) |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== |
== timings for ''cocktail sort'' vs. ''cocktail sort with shifting bounds == |
||
I did some timings (using the '''REXX''' program entries) |
I did some timings (using the '''REXX''' program entries) |
||
for the Rosetta Code |
for the Rosetta Code |
||
⚫ | |||
::::::: ''cocktail sort task'' |
|||
:::::::: <small> versus the </small> |
|||
⚫ | |||
All timings used the same identical set of random integers. |
|||
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 |
The integers were in the range of 0 ──► 100k, with every |
||
Line 18: | Line 21: | ||
shifting bounds |
shifting bounds |
||
times faster than |
times faster than |
||
N a cocktail sort ( |
N a cocktail sort (‡) |
||
════════ ════════════════════════ |
════════ ════════════════════════ |
||
1k 1.272 |
1k 1.272 |
||
Line 28: | Line 31: | ||
════════ ════════════════════════ |
════════ ════════════════════════ |
||
|
|
||
( |
(‡) cocktail sort <b><big>÷</big></b> by |
||
cocktail sort with shifting bounds |
cocktail sort with shifting bounds |
||
For any amount of '''N''' integers already |
For any amount of '''N''' integers <u>already in order</u>, |
||
the timings were identical, and for the most part, the |
the timings were identical, and for the most part, the |
||
times used by both sort versions weren't notable. |
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)