Oops, there's a bug in my analysis! the sort complexity is even better at
O(N) :)
If you're doing K merges of subarrays of size O( N / K ) (which is the
worst case for this algo due to the merge cost of O(min{N, M}) ) using the
reverse operation you've supplied, the result is an O(N) sort instead of an
O(N log N) sort. Win! :)
--
DK
http://twitter.com/divyekapoor
http://www.divye.in
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Algorithm Geeks" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/algogeeks/-/B3UaUlMO4jwJ.
To post to this group, send email to algogeeks@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
algogeeks+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks?hl=en.
