Talk:Sorting algorithms/Cycle sort: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(posed a question regard WRITE count during item placement in the array.) |
m (→number of writes: added a comment.) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Whenever a swap is done, the ''write'' count is bumped by 1 (one), but in fact, two writes are done (for two items, agreeably it was done with a ''swap'' so it may appear that only one write was performed). It appears it's counting swaps instead of writes. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC) |
Whenever a swap is done, the ''write'' count is bumped by 1 (one), but in fact, two writes are done (for two items, agreeably it was done with a ''swap'' so it may appear that only one write was performed). It appears it's counting swaps instead of writes. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
I only mention it as it appears one of the benefits of a ''cycle sort'' is the low number of writes being used during the cycle sort process. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:35, 13 June 2014
number of writes
Am I missing something or is the sample algorithm (on the Wiki article Cycle sort) incorrect in regards to the number of item writes (when placing items in the array)?
Whenever a swap is done, the write count is bumped by 1 (one), but in fact, two writes are done (for two items, agreeably it was done with a swap so it may appear that only one write was performed). It appears it's counting swaps instead of writes. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I only mention it as it appears one of the benefits of a cycle sort is the low number of writes being used during the cycle sort process. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)