Koos Zevenhoven <k7ho...@gmail.com> added the comment:
So it looks like we're working with a logarithmic measure of the "cost". I'm operating largely based on your description of Timsort in the link in msg324597, which the paper also refers to. But since the paper is sorting an array of Java ints (not Integers), I assume the performance comparisons of the code they timed is not really representative of Python equivalents. Probably galloping boosts are much larger in the Python case. I haven't tried running the attached code yet, because I mostly carry a tablet with me now. The never-equal assert probably doesn't get any more obvious by running the code, though, anyway?-). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue34561> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
