Article View: comp.sources.d
Article #744Re: Sorting in Virtual Memory
From: Taed Nelson
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 18:29
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 18:29
18 lines
1294 bytes
1294 bytes
frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes: > I'm writing a program which needs to sort a large array > parts of which are swapped in and out of memory (my own > implementation of a sort of VM). [E-mail to the asker bounced.] I have no proof, but after thinking about it, it seems to me that MERGESORT would give you the best performance, ASSUMING that you can't get away with a BUCKETSORT or a RADIXSORT (look those up if you don't know -- they are order n, not the usual n-log-n). The reason for this is that MERGESORT, for much of it's execution, is very localized. In fact, I would not be surprised if this were the optimum sorting for your problem... If you get a true answer, please post a summary!
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Sep2.182938.3974@berlioz.nsc.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!data.nas.nasa.gov!taligent!apple!voder!berlioz.nsc.com!desktop!nelsonReferences:
<1992Aug27.093506.11349@sniap.mchp.sni.de> <1992Aug27.201457.26498@dcatlas.dot.gov>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!data.nas.nasa.gov!taligent!apple!voder!berlioz.nsc.com!desktop!nelson From: nelson@desktop.nsc.com (Taed Nelson) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,alt.sources.d Subject: Re: Sorting in Virtual Memory Message-ID: <1992Sep2.182938.3974@berlioz.nsc.com> Date: 2 Sep 92 18:29:38 GMT References: <1992Aug27.093506.11349@sniap.mchp.sni.de> <1992Aug27.201457.26498@dcatlas.dot.gov> Sender: news@berlioz.nsc.com (UseNet News account) Organization: Applications Technology, National Semiconductor (Santa Clara, CA) Lines: 18