On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 2:46 AM Marco Sulla <[email protected]> wrote:
> As title. Is it faster for inplace sorting, or simply the > implementation of list.sort() was done before the implementation of > timsort? > As you already know, timsort is pretty close to merge sort. Timsort added the innovation of making mergesort in-place, plus a little (though already common) O(*n^2) sorting for small sublists. I've got a comparison of sort algorithms in both Cython and Pure Python (your choice) at: https://stromberg.dnsalias.org/~strombrg/sort-comparison/ ...including a version of timsort that is in Cython or Pure Python. HTH.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/3BF7NHDWVJMPD7NQE4H2LTSLSLHPELZX/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
