Re^5: [OT] A measure of 'sortedness'?

I understand that, but I still wonder if the performance boost afforded by simplifying the "shuffling around" could more than offset the extra overhead of more merges.

Comment on Re^5: [OT] A measure of 'sortedness'?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: [OT] A measure of 'sortedness'? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 19, 2015 at 20:44 UTC
No. If you sort A & B & C & D, then merge A+B & C+D; you still need to merge AB + CD. Better to have sorted AB, and CD, and do one merge. Ie. 4 sorts and 3 merges versus 2 sorts and 1 merge. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^6: [OT] A measure of 'sortedness'?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 19, 2015 at 20:44 UTC

No.

If you sort A & B & C & D, then merge A+B & C+D; you still need to merge AB + CD. Better to have sorted AB, and CD, and do one merge. Ie. 4 sorts and 3 merges versus 2 sorts and 1 merge.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

[reply]