Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 06:34:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 06:34:49 -0400 Received: from lightning.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.1]:32013 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 06:34:48 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC] 2.5.8 sort kernel tables To: matthias.andree@stud.uni-dortmund.de (Matthias Andree) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:52:50 +0100 (BST) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020418102105.GB7884@merlin.emma.line.org> from "Matthias Andree" at Apr 18, 2002 12:21:05 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Any real-world figures on how long this sort process would take on big > tables on some sparc or i586 class box? (Just trying to figure if bubble > is really adequate. It is if the table is indeed essentially sorted with > only like 10 reversed neighbours or if it's short.) If the table is 90% ordered an insertion sort searching from tail is even more efficient for the general case and just as simple. Its still arguing about milliseconds 8) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/