Re: No merge sort?
От | Dann Corbit |
---|---|
Тема | Re: No merge sort? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | D90A5A6C612A39408103E6ECDD77B8294CDACC@voyager.corporate.connx.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | No merge sort? (Taral <taral@taral.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: No merge sort?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jason M. Felice [mailto:jfelice@cronosys.com] > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 1:10 PM > To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] No merge sort? > > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 03:36:10PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote: > > "Ron Peacetree" <rjpeace@earthlink.net> writes: > > > > > AFAIK, there are only 3 general purpose internal sorting > techniques > > > that have O(n) behavior: > > > > Strictly speaking there are no sorting algorithms that have > worst-case > > time behaviour better than O(nlog(n)). Period. > > > > Not true. > http://www.elsewhere.org/jargon/html/entry/bogo-sort.html He said "better than" not "worse than". For comparison based sorting it is _provably_ true that you cannot sort faster than log(n!) which is O(n*(log(n))).
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: