vim wrote:
> Is best worst and average case same for selection sort?
> Tell me whether the time complexity depends on the basic steps.
> plz plz plz
Selection sort is order independent, meaning it'll take the same amount
of time regardless of the starting order. That should be enough
information
pero wrote:
> Learn C programming from these daily lessons I found. They're eleven
> days ahead of you already so get busy...
>
> http://www.visualcmaniac.com
I wouldn't try to learn C from those lessons. They're poorly
structured, poorly ordered, and filled with bad examples.
--~--~-~
shooshweet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can somebody please help me understand Heap Sort. How to build a heap
> and how can I prove that the worst case is nlogn?
>
>
> Thank you for your help.
Not too long ago I stumbled across a website that has some good stuff,
including one of the clearest descriptions of
adak wrote:
> With all caveats to the "different sorts work best in different
> situations/data", posts above, the bare-assed fact of the matter is
> that quicksort, WHEN SET UP PROPERLY for the data, will beat any other
> general purpose sorting algorithim for anything other than trivial
> number
rajat wrote:
> CAN ANY1 PLEASE PLEASE TELL ME WHICH IS THE BEST SORTING
> ALGORITHM, I HAVE TRIED A LOT TO SEARCH FOR THE BEST SORTING ALGO BUT
> IT ALL COMES DOWN TO BEING SITUATION DEPENDENT. PPL. SAY THAT QUICKSORT
> IS BETTER THAN MERGESORT COS IT SAVES THE RECOMBINATION TIME WASTED IN
> MERGE
