Re: sorting in C

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Andrew Cohen <acohen@ust.hk> writes:

> 3. Replaced the current vector sorting algorithm with TIMSORT. This did
>    exactly what TIMSORT is supposed to do: on random data it is
>    marginally slower than the current mergesort. But on partially
>    ordered data it is 5 times faster.

That's impressive -- my guess is that we do typically sort partially
ordered data a lot.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no