On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Daniel Stutzbach <
dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com> wrote:
> What's new?
> ---
>
> - blist.sort() is now *substantially* faster than list.sort() when using
> int or float keys (O(n) vs. O(n log n))
> - The sortedset, sortedlist, and sorteddict types have be
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Another sort of issue will be code maintainability. Two algorithms is
> potentially more problems than one. To me, that partly depends on how well
> factored the current code is.
>
Two algorithms is more code than one algorithm. No way aroun
On 7/22/2010 7:22 PM, Daniel Stutzbach wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Terry Reedy
That's a good point. It's tempting to add an undocumented parameter to
blist.sort that selects the sorting algorithm to use, to make it make it
easier to test multiple algorithms. There are probably se
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Looks good so far. I would like to see that repeated all the way down to
> range(10) to make sure people doing millions of small sorts were not getting
> screwed.
>
I only use the radix sort for n > 40. :-)
> Have you run a patched version
On 22/07/2010 23:25, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/21/2010 6:56 PM, Daniel Stutzbach wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Terry Reedy mailto:tjre...@udel.edu>> wrote:
These tests use random numbers with a constant, relatively high
density of 25%, which is favorable to radix sort. What if you do th
On 7/21/2010 6:56 PM, Daniel Stutzbach wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Terry Reedy mailto:tjre...@udel.edu>> wrote:
These tests use random numbers with a constant, relatively high
density of 25%, which is favorable to radix sort. What if you do the
same test with a constant r
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> These tests use random numbers with a constant, relatively high density of
> 25%, which is favorable to radix sort. What if you do the same test with a
> constant range of, say, 10 (1 billion) or even a trillion or
> quadrillion. Or ho
On 7/21/2010 12:15 PM, Daniel Stutzbach wrote:
Here's a performance comparison of sorting with blist versus 3.1's list:
http://stutzbachenterprises.com/performance-blist/sort-random-list
Question related to possible addition of radix sort to lists:
These tests use random numbers with a consta
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Are you using some kind of radix sort?
> Could it be contributed back into the standard list type?
Yes and yes. I have a few mostly-complete patches on the tracker that I
need to polish off, as well as several easy-to-fix bugs that I nee
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:47:08 -0500
Daniel Stutzbach wrote:
>
> What's new?
> ---
>
> - blist.sort() is now *substantially* faster than list.sort() when using int
> or float keys (O(n) vs. O(n log n))
Are you using some kind of radix sort?
Could it be contributed back into the standard l
10 matches
Mail list logo
