Comparison Of Sorting Algorithms

Shell Sort vs. Heap Sort vs. Merge Sort vs. …

From time to time people ask the ageless question: Which sorting algorithm is the fastest? This question doesn't have an easy or unambiguous answer, however. The speed of sorting can depend quite heavily on the environment where the sorting is done, the type of items that are sorted and the distribution of these items.

For example, sorting a database which is so big that cannot fit into memory all at once is quite different from sorting an array of 100 integers. Not only will the implementation of the algorithm be quite different, naturally, but it may even be that the same algorithm which is fast in one case is slow in the other. Also sorting an array may be different from sorting a linked list, for example.

Results are available for:
1. Integers
2. Integers, high amount of repetition
3. Strings: Slow comparison, fast copying.
4. Arrays: Fast comparison, slow copying.

http://warp.povusers.org/SortComparison/

Analysis of different sorting algorithms

http://linux.wku.edu/~lamonml/algor/sort/sort.html

Sorting Algorithms explained with a few paragraphs (very good for a quick introduction)

http://betterexplained.com/articles/sorting-algorithms/

Sorting Algorithms (Big O Comparison)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorting_algorithm

Sorting and Searching Algorithms (good description of Big O)

http://epaperpress.com/sortsearch/download/sortsearch.pdf

We can place an upper-bound on the execution time of algorithms using O (big-oh) notation. An
algorithm that runs in O(n2) time indicates that execution time increases with the square of the
dataset size. For example, if we increase dataset size by a factor of ten, execution time will
increase by a factor of 100. A more precise explanation of big-oh follows.

Big-oh notation does not describe the exact time that an algorithm takes, but only indicates an
asymptotic upper bound on execution time within a constant factor. If an algorithm takes O(n2)
time, then execution time grows no worse than the square of the size of the list.

.............n             lg n   n7/6           n lg n       n2
 
                            0      1               0             1
             1
                            4      25              64            256
             16
                            8      645             2,048         65,536
             256
                            12     16,384          49,152        16,777,216
             4,096
                            16     416,128         1,048,565     4,294,967,296
             65,536
                            20     10,568,983      20,971,520    1,099,511,627,776
             1,048,576
                            24     268,435,456 402,653,183       281,474,976,710,656
             16,777,216
                                      Table 1-1: Growth Rates

Table 1-1 illustrates growth rates for various functions. A growth rate of O(lg n) occurs for
algorithms similar to the binary search. The lg (logarithm, base 2) function increases by one when
n is doubled. Recall that we can search twice as many items with one more comparison in the
binary search. Thus the binary search is a O(lg n) algorithm.

If the values in Table 1-1 represented microseconds, then a O(n1.25) algorithm may take 10
microseconds to process 1,048,476 items, a O(lg n) algorithm 20 seconds, and a O(n2) algorithm
up to 12 days! In the following chapters a timing estimate for each algorithm, using big-O
notation, will be included. For a more formal derivation of these formulas you may wish to consult
the references.

Visual animation of various sorting algorithms

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~harrison/Java/sorting-demo.html?donttaseme

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License