XP is just a number PerlMonks

### comment on

 Need Help??
I was recently enjoying(sic) seeing 'script kiddies' trying to scan the ports on my home box. I wrote a script to parse out the packet DENY entries from my messages log file and realized that I should sort the list of IP's to make them easier to read.

Thoughts of complex sorting started to form in my head: split up the quad's and start comparing. I started to look for some elegant ways of doing this, when I realized how much more simple (and potentially more efficient) it would be to pack each IP into it's hex form. "This has to be a much, much faster way", I thought to myself.

So I did a search at Google and found this page written by Uri Guttman and Larry Rosler. They discuss this very thing - giving one example that sorts by breaking up the IP bytes and comparing them, and another example that packs the IP's into hex.

Here are their two examples, slightly paraphrased:

```#naive: O(N*logN)
my @sorted = sort {

my @a = \$a =~ /(\d+)\.(\d+)\.(\d+)\.(\d+)/;
my @b = \$b =~ /(\d+)\.(\d+)\.(\d+)\.(\d+)/;

\$a[0] <=> \$b[0] ||
\$a[1] <=> \$b[1] ||
\$a[2] <=> \$b[2] ||
\$a[3] <=> \$b[3]

} @unsorted;

#packed: O(N*logN)
my @sorted = sort {

pack('C4' => \$a =~ /(\d+)\.(\d+)\.(\d+)\.(\d+)/)
cmp
pack('C4' => \$b =~ /(\d+)\.(\d+)\.(\d+)\.(\d+)/)

} @unsorted;
What gets me is the fact that they have the same Big(O), but when benchmarked:
```Benchmark: timing 5000 iterations of naive, packed...
naive: 11 wallclock secs ( 9.91 usr +  0.32 sys = 10.23 CPU)
packed:  8 wallclock secs ( 7.95 usr +  0.08 sys =  8.03 CPU)
there is an obvious difference.

To be honest, I really hated Big(O)analysis in college, and I think this is the very reason why. There is an obvious amount of better efficiency in the packed version, but in a constant way - this of course is eliminated when doing Big(O), making both algorithms 'equal'.

I am posting this mainly because I couldn't find any good IP sorting algorithms on PM, but I was also wondering how other Monks out there feel about the Big(O).

Jeff Anderson
tyring to be a better programmer every day . . .

UPDATE: Fri Aug 4 09:31:30 CDT 2000
Thanks to everyone for helping me understand the error in my ways - this whole time I was trying to compare apples to oranges, no wonder I had such a hard time understanding O(n). Big thanks to gryng for such a wonderful and heart-felt explaination. You rule.

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":

• Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
• Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
• Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
• Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
• You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
 For: Use: & & < < > > [ [ ] ]
• Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?

Create A New User
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others pondering the Monastery: (5)
As of 2020-02-24 12:04 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
Voting Booth?
What numbers are you going to focus on primarily in 2020?

Results (104 votes). Check out past polls.

Notices?