Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Unusual sorting requirements; comparing three implementations.

by sundialsvc4 (Abbot)
on Oct 25, 2012 at 16:28 UTC ( #1000902=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Unusual sorting requirements; comparing three implementations.

Perhaps this is mysteries that are beyond my ken, but reading through this thread I am quite puzzled by the number fifteen.   That is quite a remarkable difference, especially when the sort-algorithm does not change.   In the end, what is it about this algorithm that produces essentially a 2**4-fold improvement?   And, does this improvement hold in a linear fashion as the number of records grows (but stays within the confines of the available process working-set)?

It is, of course, quite clear how it works:   the list is sorted irrespective of name, then partitioned into manager vs. non-manager, then one sorted sublist is put in front of the other.   But fifteen is still a very counter-intuitive spread between the two ... I feel reluctant to shout “eureka!” based on just this.


Comment on Re: Unusual sorting requirements; comparing three implementations.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1000902]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-11-28 05:58 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My preferred Perl binaries come from:














    Results (193 votes), past polls