Anonymous user
Compare sorting algorithms' performance: Difference between revisions
Compare sorting algorithms' performance (view source)
Revision as of 23:20, 17 August 2021
, 2 years agoadded sorting category.
m (→{{header|REXX}}: changed font-size for output.) |
m (added sorting category.) |
||
Line 1:
{{task|Sorting Algorithms}}
[[Category:Sorting]]
{{Sorting Algorithm}}
Measure a relative performance of sorting algorithms implementations.
Line 5 ⟶ 8:
Consider three type of input sequences:
:* ones: sequence of all ''1'''s. Example: {1, 1, 1, 1, 1}
:* range: ascending sequence, i.e. already sorted. Example: {1, 2, 3, 10, 15}
:* shuffled range: sequence with elements randomly distributed. Example: {5, 3, 9, 6, 8}
Consider at least two different sorting functions (different algorithms or/and different implementation of the same algorithm).
For example, consider [[Bubble Sort]], [[Insertion sort]], [[Quicksort]] or/and implementations of Quicksort with different pivot selection mechanisms. Where possible, use existing implementations.
Preliminary subtask:
:* [[Bubble Sort]], [[Insertion sort]], [[Quicksort]], [[Radix sort]], [[Shell sort]]
:* [[Query Performance]]
:* [[Write float arrays to a text file]]
:* [[Plot x, y arrays]]
:* [[Polynomial Fitting]]
General steps:
:# Define sorting routines to be considered.
:# Define appropriate sequence generators and write timings.
:# Plot timings.
:# What conclusions about relative performance of the sorting routines could be made based on the plots?
<br><br>
=={{header|AutoHotkey}}==
| |||