> > If you want to test speed, then a pretty easy way is to pick permutations at > random, possibly emphasizing some kinds of permutations and run a sort for > those permutations using both algorithms. Measuring speeds and taking the > fastest iteration for each permutation should allow speed comparisons.
Keep in mind that I am I not changing any algorithms. I want to get rid of the deprecations on the call graph of the collections code, if nothing else, and that call graph includes a mixed bag of nuts. So, what I'm really asking is this: when you all put deprecations on all of Colt, what level of testing did you anticipate doing before removing them? > > The down side of this is that you wind up with a pretty slow test. If the > speed difference isn't large, then the test won't even be very reliable. I > think that the better option is to test off-line to verify the improvement > and just make a note in the javadocs with the results. > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Benson Margulies > <bimargul...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > '4' was lame humor. Thanks for the concrete suggestion, I'll go there. >> >> To be clearer about the lame joke: it's easy to test 'does it sort'. >> It's hard to test, 'does it correctly get implement this particular >> variation on quickSort which can be distinguished from others only by >> speed.' >> >> >> >
