RetroSearch Browse

Tue Sep 13 13:24:18 EDT 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-September/146454.html

On Sep 11 2016, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
> Tim Peters investigated and empirically determined that an
> O(n*n) binary insort, as he optimized it on real machines, is faster
> than O(n*logn) sorting for up to around 64 items.

Out of curiosity: is this test repeated periodically on different
architectures? Or could it be that it only ever was true 10 years ago on
Tim's Power Mac G5 (or whatever he used)?

Best,
-Nikolaus

-- 
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-September/146454.html below:

[Python-Dev] Drastically improving list.sort() for lists of strings/ints