Talk:Sorting algorithms/Cycle sort: Difference between revisions
m (→number of writes: added a comment.) |
m (→number of writes: nevermind.) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
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) |
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) |
||
----- |
|||
Nevermind, I see the algorithm was only counting writes to the original array. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:37, 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)
Nevermind, I see the algorithm was only counting writes to the original array. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)