Compare sorting algorithms' performance: Difference between revisions

Line 1,700:

On the other hand, bubble and insertion sorts are much quicker than the other methods for constant data and for data which is already sorted in an ascending direction, bubble sort being the faster of the two.

=={{header|Mathematica}}/{{header|Wolfram Language}}==

Comparing bubble and shell sort:

<lang Mathematica>ClearAll[BubbleSort,ShellSort]

BubbleSort[in_List]:=Module[{x=in,l=Length[in],swapped},swapped=True;

While[swapped,swapped=False;

Do[If[x[[i]]>x[[i+1]],x[[{i,i+1}]]//=Reverse;

swapped=True;],{i,l-1}];];

x]

ShellSort[lst_]:=Module[{list=lst,incr,temp,i,j},incr=Round[Length[list]/2];

While[incr>0,For[i=incr+1,i<=Length[list],i++,temp=list[[i]];j=i;

While[(j>=(incr+1))&&(list[[j-incr]]>temp),list[[j]]=list[[j-incr]];j=j-incr;];

list[[j]]=temp;];

If[incr==2,incr=1,incr=Round[incr/2.2]]];list]

times=Table[

arr=ConstantArray[1,n];

t1={{n,AbsoluteTiming[BubbleSort[arr];][[1]]},{n,AbsoluteTiming[ShellSort[arr];][[1]]}};

arr=Sort[RandomInteger[{10^6},n]];

t2={{n,AbsoluteTiming[BubbleSort[arr];][[1]]},{n,AbsoluteTiming[ShellSort[arr];][[1]]}};

arr=RandomInteger[{10^6},n];

t3={{n,AbsoluteTiming[BubbleSort[arr];][[1]]},{n,AbsoluteTiming[ShellSort[arr];][[1]]}};

{t1,t2,t3}

,

{n,2^Range[13]}

];

ListLogLogPlot[Transpose@times[[All,1]],PlotLegends->{"Bubble","Shell"},PlotLabel->"Ones"]

ListLogLogPlot[Transpose@times[[All,2]],PlotLegends->{"Bubble","Shell"},PlotLabel->"Ascending integers"]

ListLogLogPlot[Transpose@times[[All,3]],PlotLegends->{"Bubble","Shell"},PlotLabel->"Shuffled"]</lang>

Outputs three graphs on a log-log scales showing the size of the array and the time taken, for each of the three different arrays.

=={{header|Nim}}==