Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
JT
Posts:
436
Registered:
4/7/12
|
|
Re: Just finished the fastest ever, general purpose sorting algorithm.
Posted:
Jan 7, 2013 3:56 AM
|
|
On 7 Jan, 09:10, forbisga...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 6, 2013 11:08:53 PM UTC-8, JT wrote:
> > Well if you cannot build it you can't, i did. There is no comparissons
> > only rules for 0=left 1=right and a recursive algorithm at digit
> > level. You do not need to understand because the once before you
> > didn't either.
>
> Do you realize how expensive breaking out bits are?
> You want to build a tree at the bit level? Heck, the
> time to extract the bit exceeds the compare, then you've
> got to get an address and check to see if exists or not.
>
> I'll play just a bit more.
>
> How do you determine if you are at a branch or leaf node?
> Do you think there is no cost to this? Just retrieving
> a relative address and adding it to the base is expensive.
> Why do you think we went to superscalar processors with
> speculative execution? Even so most micros have less than
> 8M onboard cache so paging happens quite a bit. Paging is
> quite expensive.
>
> With today's processors you have to worry about more than
> the number of instructions executed you have to worry about
> how close they are to each other and how to get as much done
> with as little paging as possible.
>
> In the late '70 I was working on a B-1700. While I knew the
> IBM360 had microcode (Amdal lost the battle so went to work
> for Fuji then learned the advantage of volitile memory microcode
> when they came out with the 370) the B-1700 sported two distinct
> sets of microcodes in memory at the same time, one optomized
> for the OS and algol and a secod optomized for RPG and Cobol.
> I thought I'd like to work on microcode but I don't have the
> patience for the fine tuning. Neither do most of us. The
> CISC vs RISC fight is over. Sure there's RISC under the covers
> but most of us just don't care. We just want to write programs
> that do fancy stuff and not waste a bunch of time on the minutiae.
>
> So go introduce your count sort. It's a variation of a binary
> insertion sort. You won't save any time but what the heck, if
> it's your passion then go for it and feel the pain of rejection
> and ridicule.
Did i say what type of problem my implementation was used in?
|
|
|
|
