Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    text
    copied!<ul> <li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorting_algorithm#Comparison_of_algorithms" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>Comparison of algorithms</strong></a> </li> <li><a href="http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/computersciencetheory/sortcomp.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>Sorting Algorithms Compared</strong></a></li> <li><a href="http://www.softpanorama.org/Algorithms/sorting.shtml" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>Slightly Skeptical View on Sorting Algorithms</strong></a></li> </ul> <p>Mathematicians would put it that most sorts run in O(n log(n)) or O(n²) time, where RadixSort runs in O(n) time. -<a href="http://mindprod.com/jgloss/radixsort.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">source</a></p> <p>Bucket sort is a cousin of radix sort in the most to least significant digit flavour. - <a href="http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Bucket_sort" rel="nofollow noreferrer">source</a></p> <p>Advantages: -<a href="http://caveshadow.com/CS566/Rekha%20Saripella%20-%20Radix%20and%20Bucket%20Sort.ppt" rel="nofollow noreferrer">copied from source</a><br></p> <ul> <li><p>Radix and bucket sorts are stable, preserving existing order of equal keys. <br></p></li> <li><p>They work in linear time, unlike most other sorts. In other words, they do not bog down when large numbers of items need to be sorted. Most sorts run in O(n log n) or O(n^2) time.<br></p></li> <li><p>The time to sort per item is constant, as no comparisons among items are made. With other sorts, the time to sort per time increases with the number of items. <br></p></li> <li><p>Radix sort is particularly efficient when you have large numbers of records to sort with short keys.<br></p></li> </ul>
 

Querying!

 
Guidance

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload