Re: [boost] Review Request: Algorithm.Sorting

Subject: Re: [boost] Review Request: Algorithm.Sorting
From: Steven Ross (spreadsort_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-27 13:56:12

For a detailed description of why this has superior worst-case performance,
you can read the paper I wrote on the Spreadsort algorithm in 2002:**
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=691537

The original algorithm I wrote that paper based upon did not have LOG_CONST
or MAX_SPLITS, which made it less cache-friendly, but the basic concept is
the same.

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 9:54 AM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
> on Mon Apr 27 2009, Steven Ross <spreadsort-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All 3 have superior worst-case and average-case performance to std::sort,
> > based upon my testing.
>
> How can you determine worst-case performance by testing?  Or have I
> misunderstood your statement?
>
> --
> Dave Abrahams
> BoostPro Computing
> http://www.boostpro.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>