Sort

Sorting Algorithm

Summary

There are a lot of sorting algorithms, I have only done on a part of the exercises and tests, and there are a lot of tests that are not tested because of their time complexity (e.g. bogo sort) or implementation complexity (e.g. tim sort). Here are some of the tests I did:

• Comparison sorts
  • binary_tree_sort
  • bubble_sort
  • comb_sort
  • heap_sort
  • insertion_sort
  • merge_sort
  • odd_even_sort
  • quick_sort
  • selection_sort
  • shell_sort
  • smooth_sort
• Non-comparison sorts
  • bucket_sort
  • counting_sort
  • radix_sort
• Other
  • sleep_sort

---

Overview

The following information is in my algorithm implementation.

Binary tree sort

Best time complexity	Worst time complexity	Average time complexity	Memory	Stable	Source code
O(nlog(n))	O(nlog(n))	O(nlog(n))	O(n)	Yes	binary_tree_sort.cc

Dynamic display

None.

Bubble sort

Best time complexity	Worst time complexity	Average time complexity	Memory	Stable	Source code
O(n)	O(n²)	O(n²)	O(1)	Yes	bubble_sort.cc

Dynamic display

Bucket sort

Best time complexity	Worst time complexity	Average time complexity	Memory	Stable	Source code
O(n+k)	O(n²)	O(n+k)	O(n+k)	Yes	bucket_sort.cc

Dynamic display

None.

Comb sort

Best time complexity	Worst time complexity	Average time complexity	Memory	Stable	Source code
O(nlog(n))	O(n²)	O(n²/(2^p))	O(1)	No	comb_sort.cc

Dynamic display

Counting sort

Best time complexity	Worst time complexity	Average time complexity	Memory	Stable	Source code
-	O(n+r)	O(n+r)	O(n+r)	Yes	counting_sort.cc

Dynamic display

None.

Heap sort

Best time complexity	Worst time complexity	Average time complexity	Memory	Stable	Source code
O(nlog(n))	O(nlog(n))	O(nlog(n))	O(1)	No	heap_sort.cc

Dynamic display

Insertion sort

Best time complexity	Worst time complexity	Average time complexity	Memory	Stable	Source code
O(n)	O(n²)	O(n²)	O(1)	Yes	insertion_sort.cc

Dynamic display

Merge sort

Best time complexity	Worst time complexity	Average time complexity	Memory	Stable	Source code
O(nlog(n))	O(nlog(n))	O(nlog(n))	O(n)	Yes	merge_sort.cc

Dynamic display

Odd even sort

Best time complexity	Worst time complexity	Average time complexity	Memory	Stable	Source code
O(n)	O(n²)	O(n²)	O(1)	Yes	odd_even_sort.cc

Dynamic display

Quick sort

Best time complexity	Worst time complexity	Average time complexity	Memory	Stable	Source code
O(nlog(n))	O(n²)	O(nlog(n))	O(log(n))	No	quick_sort.cc

Dynamic display

Radix sort

Best time complexity	Worst time complexity	Average time complexity	Memory	Stable	Source code
O(n)	-	O(wn)	O(w+n)	Tes	radix_sort.cc

Dynamic display

None.

Selection sort

Best time complexity	Worst time complexity	Average time complexity	Memory	Stable	Source code
O(n²)	O(n²)	O(n²)	O(1)	No	selection_sort.cc

Dynamic display

Shell sort

Best time complexity	Worst time complexity	Average time complexity	Memory	Stable	Source code
O(n^(7/6))	O(n^(4/3))	-	O(1)	No	shell_sort.cc

Dynamic display

Sleep sort

Best time complexity	Worst time complexity	Average time complexity	Memory	Stable	Source code
O(1)	-	-	O(n)	No	sleep_sort.cc

Dynamic display

None.

Smooth sort

Best time complexity	Worst time complexity	Average time complexity	Memory	Stable	Source code
O(n)	O(nlog(n))	O(nlog(n))	O(1)	No	smooth_sort.cc

Dynamic display

---

Test

I chose some of the sorting algorithms that are commonly used or work better to show their performances in various orders of magnitude, and compared them to std::sort. (Only for integers)

• Small amount of data (In microseconds)

Sorting algorithm	16	32	64	128	512	1024
Bubble sort	0.718460μs	2.323331μs	8.742816μs	30.240628μs	451.183452μs	1876.617118μs
Insertion sort	0.354564μs	0.662476μs	1.502234μs	4.077493μs	39.589937μs	134.445298μs
Selection sort	0.615823μs	1.726170μs	4.404065μs	13.939987μs	150.167438μs	493.693882μs
Merge sort	4.292098μs	9.013405μs	18.521335μs	39.645921μs	155.457916μs	311.587638μs
Heap sort	0.802436μs	1.642194μs	4.208122μs	10.273043μs	48.155471μs	102.982355μs
Quick sort	1.427589μs	2.202033μs	4.758630μs	9.097381μs	40.513671μs	84.237084μs
Shell sort	0.690468μs	1.091686μs	2.957815μs	6.680743μs	36.912041μs	87.633440μs
Smooth sort	1.045032μs	2.649904μs	6.475469μs	15.134310μs	77.033824μs	168.044959μs
Comb sort	0.513186μs	1.110347μs	2.351323μs	5.514413μs	28.999652μs	62.673958μs
std::sort	0.438540μs	0.821097μs	2.621912μs	5.924961μs	31.798846μs	66.770113μs

• Large amount of data (In milliseconds)

Sorting algorithm	10000	100000	1000000
Bubble sort	192.724614ms	15324.636641ms	551999.618190ms
Insertion sort	11.071746ms	1199.033438ms	140489.051698ms
Selection sort	39.881986ms	3896.193842ms	394233.806428ms
Merge sort	3.423321ms	32.797505ms	336.168389ms
Heap sort	1.547394ms	17.826575ms	282.484509ms
Quick sort	1.045033ms	8.998943ms	78.881106ms
Shell sort	1.200761ms	15.585073ms	180.192715ms
Smooth sort	2.136252ms	25.397649ms	350.425244ms
Comb sort	0.988116ms	10.678459ms	126.565752ms
std::sort	0.845077ms	10.250556ms	104.314305ms

From the above table, we can see that (In my sorting algorithms implementation):

• When the amount of data is less than 128, insertion_sort is more advantageous.
• When the amount of data is between 128 and 10000, comb_sort is more advantageous.
• When the amount of data is greater than 10000, quick_sort is more advantageous.

In order to get more accurate data, I have done a further test.

Sorting algorithm	16	32	64	128	256	512	1024	2048	4096	8192	10000	100000	1000000	10000000	100000000
Insertion sort	0.401218μs	0.690468μs	1.558218μs	4.198791μs	13.090898μs	45.300293μs	167.597088μs	518.410767μs	2153.046876μs	9295.592109μs	-	-	-	-	-
Comb sort	0.606492μs	1.250307μs	2.836517μs	6.494131μs	16.561899μs	36.277557μs	84.600980μs	163.528925μs	330.892747μs	747.338199μs	0.901061ms	12.528727ms	140.981603ms	1540.349918ms	16413.311661ms
Quick sort	1.166331μs	2.286009μs	4.870598μs	10.459656μs	22.356231μs	47.968858μs	102.991685μs	180.827946μs	386.783325μs	804.982939μs	0.942489ms	10.484755ms	91.543914ms	865.948456ms	8535.924019ms
std::sort	0.485194μs	0.951726μs	2.799194μs	6.596768μs	14.947697μs	33.711629μs	74.971752μs	138.485468μs	308.657814μs	629.482793μs	0.817458ms	9.687451ms	100.566277ms	961.007785ms	9889.731343ms

Now I am sure that:

• When the amount of data is less than 256, insertion_sort has a very good performance, even better than std::sort.
• When the amount of data is between 256 and 10000, the performance of comb_sort is slightly better than quick_sort.
• When the amount of data is between 256 and 100000, the performance of std::sort is the best.
• When the amount of data is greater than 100000, the performance of std::sort is not as good as quick_sort.

How can I beat std::sort? So I referred to the practice of introsort, but did not control the split depth. I call it Impro sort, and now use it to compare with quick_sort and std::sort.

Sorting algorithm	16	32	64	128	256	512	1024	2048	4096	8192	10000	100000	1000000	10000000	100000000
Quick sort	1.166331μs	2.286009μs	4.870598μs	10.459656μs	22.356231μs	47.968858μs	102.991685μs	180.827946μs	386.783325μs	804.982939μs	0.942489ms	10.484755ms	91.543914ms	865.948456ms	8535.924019ms
Impro sort	0.466531μs	0.886410μs	2.108721μs	6.326164μs	12.363079μs	27.637313μs	59.771987μs	125.935454μs	278.136618μs	479.678131μs	0.617594ms	7.230302ms	84.720028ms	724.386383ms	7360.014444ms
std::sort	0.485194μs	0.951726μs	2.799194μs	6.596768μs	14.947697μs	33.711629μs	74.971752μs	138.485468μs	308.657814μs	629.482793μs	0.817458ms	9.687451ms	100.566277ms	961.007785ms	9889.731343ms

From the latest test can be seen, no matter in which respect, Impro sort havs improved than Quick sort, that's why I call it Impro sort, which means "Improved sort". And in my test, Impro sort achieved a comprehensive victory, even faster than std::sort. Oh yeah! Although the results may not be so accurate, this shows that there is space for improvement in sorting algorithm, and we can do better through our efforts.

转载于:https://www.cnblogs.com/widerg/p/7222647.html