From: "Paul Gilmartin" <00000014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:02 AM
On 2017-05-17, at 12:59, Martin Ward wrote:
On 16/05/17 23:46, Richard Kuebbing wrote:
This takes O(n) time, as opposed to O(n log n) for Peter's "generate and sort" method. With only 99,999 numbers the extra CPU time may not be significant, depending on how often you need to generate a sequence.
Presuming that the table fits in main memory. On the first mainframes I used, 99,999 wouldn't have fit.
You don't need to store all the numbers. One buit for each number was sufficient. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
