On Sep 13 2016, Tim Peters <tim.pet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu>]
>>> Tim Peters investigated and empirically determined that an
>>> O(n*n) binary insort, as he optimized it on real machines, is faster
>>> than O(n*logn) sorting for up to around 64 items.
>
> [Nikolaus Rath <nikol...@rath.org>]
>> Out of curiosity: is this test repeated periodically on different
>> architectures? Or could it be that it only ever was true 10 years ago on
>> Tim's Power Mac G5 (or whatever he used)?
>
> It has little to do with architecture, but much to do with the
> relative cost of comparisons versus pointer-copying. Near the end of
>
> https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/Objects/listsort.txt
[...]
Ah, that makes sense, thanks!
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
