[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: <SNIP> > OK. So the random order - quicksort marginally outperforms heapsort. For > the already sorted case, quicksort is rather better than heapsort, but > its margin goes down as the count goes up. However, with the data all > the same... ooopppsss.... my quicksort has fallen headlong into the > O(n*n) trap.
That has always been a 'failing' of the quicksort, when the data are in sorted order, it takes 'forever' to finish. I was taught that at college and was reminded of it when I wrote "PrinterMaster 2" - I used a quicksort internally and if it was run twice, the first one was quick (the data were random) and the second took ages (the data were sorted already). In the end, I ripped the guts of the quicksort out and replaced it with some other sort, probably a bubble sort as I think the size of the array being sorted was limited to 200 entries or something. Then again, maybe I used something else instead. Cheers, Norman. _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
