Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| From: | w.clodius@icloud.com (William Clodius) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:25:21 -0600 |
| Organization: | A noiseless patient Spider |
| References: | <6effed5e-6c90-f5f4-0c80-a03c61fd2127@gkc.org.uk> 18-03-042 18-03-047 18-03-075 18-03-077 18-03-090 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="56193"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | performance, comment |
| Posted-Date: | 25 Mar 2018 06:46:11 EDT |
Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> wrote:
> <snip>> [Give or take the detail that bubble sort is never the right algorithm
> since insertion sort is shorter and faster, I agree. -John]
I believe that bubble sort is faster if the data is usually presorted.
The Unicode consortium describes the sorting of codepoints to forn the
normalization forms, because the initial decomposition process usually
results in an ordering that is usually in or close to the desired order.
[It's the reverse. Insertion sort is O(N) if the list is already sorted.
See http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-bubble-sort-and-vs-insertion-sort/
-John]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.