4 Mar
2008
4 Mar
'08
5:37 p.m.
Thanks for improved code. My point was to measure which programming patterns are faster than the others so I can learn which ones I should use. However, the thing that is really bad is the fact, that even oneliner qsort_i is faster than library sort. Which is very different from what I've expected. My intuition is only best and fastest code goes to library, to the point that people can learn from it. It seems I was mislead.
It could probably be improved (with classics solution (better selection of the pivot...)), but the mergesort is only 3 times slower in worse case, and much more regular, if someone needs a faster sort in a specific case, it isn't hard to code.
-- Jedaï