On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:00 AM, Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org> wrote:
> Yes; there seemed no advantage to any additional complexity.
> The merge consistently performs fewer comparisons than the
> quicksort, on random input - and many fewer if there are
> any sorted (or reverse-sorted) sections. However, it also
> consistently takes slightly longer (a few percent). I was
> unable to chase this down but assume it to be a cacheing
> effect. So I don't currently think it should replace the
> current sort for all use.
It's definitely caching effects. That's a very important consideration here.
--
Peter Geoghegan