From: Sam Schetterer (samthecppman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-25 20:55:58
On 3/25/07, Lewis Hyatt <lhyatt_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Ok. Here are the results, copied directly from the console:
> OK, well a factor of 3 in speed could certainly be interesting. I want to
> compiling this code on my system to see how it compares, but I can't seem
> compile any of the library now.
> I am also getting a lot of errors from radix.hpp, at least some of them
> stemming from a typo on line 16.
> Also, I wanted to try the multi-key quick sort, but there is no
> and no example so I have no idea how to use it. At a quick glance, the new
> mkquicksort.hpp looks to be much cleaner now. (There is an older example,
> but it
> doesn't include the mkquicksort.hpp file, it has a bunch of classes
> defined in
> the .cpp file containing main).
Ok. I have just re-compiled with gcc and have fixed all of the reported
errors. Also, I found a few bugs and have fixed those too. I am posting this
working version on vault in the sorting directory with 3 test programs
showing radixsort, radix quicksort, and multikey quicksort. Suprisingly,
they are all faster than std::sort, mostly by a factor of three and more,
for floats, radix sort is faster by a factor of five.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk