I AM A STUDANT AT P.U.C . UNIVERSITY IN BRAZIL AND I WOULD LIKE TO GET SOME
INFORMATION ABOUT HEAP SORT METHOD. JUST TO LET YOU NOW, THE REASON THAT MAKES
ME FEEL LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT IT, IS BECAUSE I AM DEVELOPING A PAPER WORK
ABOUT METHODS AND ORGANIZATION. THEREFORE I HAVE SOME
Lennart wrote
> Well, I'm a sucker for a benchmark so I ran all of these with hbc.
> I also added the smooth merge sort that comes with hbc.
> ...
> As you can see there is no clear winner, but I see no real reason
> to change the sort that comes with hbc to something else at this
> moment.
You
Oh, Chris, here's a line for your splay sort:
splay 0.636 2.625 0.952 - 0.603 2.698 - 3.582 5.731 2.350
-
BTW, I don't think the test program does the right thing. It prints
the last element of the sorted list, but there is nothing that
says that computing this
Ralf wrote:
10 | < |<= | > |>= |== | 1 2* |
1..100* | 2 1* | 100..1* | 1 2 2 1* |random
merge | 3.15 | 9.16 | 2.83 | 8.96 | 3.18 | 6.65 |
9.60 | 6.64 | 9.46 | 6.58 |
Sorting is a hobby-horse of mine, so I cannot resist the temptation to
elaborate on the subject. I was motivated to write this rather long
reply by Carsten Kehler Holst saying `As far as I can see the
difference between merge sort and heap sort as described by Jon is
almost non existing'. Ca
--167E2781446B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Ralf Hinze wrote:
> Practitioners are probably surprised to learn that `pairingSort' is the
> algorithm of choice for sorting. Any objections to this recommendation?
> I was surprised to see that it performs so well: sorting
On 4 Oct , Chris Okasaki wrote:
> But the heapsort you give is nothing like the standard imperative
> heapsort!
Point taken, although I think 'nothing like' is overstating the case.
> Yes, it uses a heap, but not the binary heap used by standard
> heapsort.
Perfectly true. I only said that yo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here is my version:
> [...]
>
> On 21 Sep , Chris Dornan wrote:
> > When would a heap sort be preferable to a merge sort?
>
> a) When you want to explain the imperative heapsort
But the heapsort you give is nothing like the standard imper
On 2 Oct , Carsten Kehler Holst wrote:
> Merge Sort vs. Heap Sort (ala Jon)
> As far as I can see the difference between merge sort and heap sort as
> described by Jon is almost non existing.
I'm afraid you need to look a little harder :-)
At first let me note that heapsort a
Merge Sort vs. Heap Sort (ala Jon)
As far as I can see the difference between merge sort and heap sort as
described by Jon is almost non existing.
Merge sort as I wrote it in 92 (it might have been 93 :-).
Using Jon's naming:
runify x = [x]
merge [] ys = ys
merge xs [] = xs
merge xrun@
heap node_a@(Node a heaps_a) node_b@(Node b heaps_b)
| a < b = Node a (node_b: heaps_a)
| otherwise = Node b (node_a: heaps_b)
-- end
On 21 Sep , Chris Dornan wrote:
> When would a heap sort be preferable to a merge sort?
a) When you want to explai
On 19 Sep, Nicholas Bleakly wrote:
> Does any body have a heap sort algorithm (i.e. takes a single unsorted
> list and applies a heap sort to it)?
On 20 Sep, [EMAIL PROTECTED] replied:
> If you mean a functional one, I have. I could email it to you. Or
> post it here if wanted.
On 19 Sep, Nicholas Bleakly wrote:
> Does any body have a heap sort algorithm (i.e. takes a single unsorted
> list and applies a heap sort to it)?
If you mean a functional one, I have. I could email it to you. Or
post it here if wanted. Does anyone else have one?
--
Jon Fai
Does any body have a heap sort algorithm (i.e. takes a single unsorted
list and applies a heap sort to it)?
Thanks
--
Nicholas Bleakly
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LINUX! The choice of a GNU generation.
14 matches
Mail list logo
