Talk:Sorting algorithms/Cocktail sort with shifting bounds: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Talk:Sorting algorithms/Cocktail sort with shifting bounds (view source)

Revision as of 13:52, 11 July 2021

163 bytes added , 2 years ago

m

added highlighting.

Anonymous user

rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger

Revision as of 08:12, 14 May 2020 (view source) rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger m (changed wording of talk section name.) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 13:52, 11 July 2021 (view source) rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger m (added highlighting.)
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: I did some timings   (using the '''REXX''' program entries)   for the Rosetta Code ~~  ''cocktail sort''   task versus~~ the   ''cocktail sort with shifting bounds''   task.▼ ::::::: ''cocktail sort task'' :::::::: <small> versus the </small> ▲~~the  ~~::::::: ''cocktail sort with shifting bounds task'' ~~  task~~. ~~All timings used the same identical set of random integers.~~ All timings used the same (repeatable) identical set of random integers   (by using a   ''seed''   for the   '''random'''   BIF). The integers were in the range of   0 ──► 100k,   with every Line 18 ⟶ 21: shifting bounds times faster than N a cocktail sort (&Dagger;) ════════ ════════════════════════ 1k 1.272 Line 28 ⟶ 31: ════════ ════════════════════════   (&Dagger;) cocktail sort <b><big>÷</big></b> by cocktail sort with shifting bounds For any amount of   '''N'''   integers <u>already  in  order</u>,   the timings were identical,   and for the most part,   the times used by both sort versions weren't notable.