mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com> writes:
> > Because qsort() is *supposed* to be optimized by the vendor for their
> > platform, perhaps even written in assembler. It makes sense to trust
> > the vendor except when their implementation is provably pessimized.
>
> Perhaps *supposed* to be optimized, but, in reality, are they? Is it a
> realistic expectation?
I think most vendors do a pretty good job. Don't forget, optimizing a
routine like that depends a lot on the cache size and behavior of the
CPU and other architecture-dependent stuff.
> qsort() is a great sort for very random data, when data is mostly in the
> correct order, it is very bad. Perhaps replacing it with an alternate sort
> would improve performance in general.
Actually, the C standard says nothing about what algorithm should be
used for qsort(); it's simply supposed to be a fast in-memory sort.
The qsort() name is just a historical artifact.
-Doug
--
Doug McNaught Wireboard Industries http://www.wireboard.com/
Custom software development, systems and network consulting. Java PostgreSQL Enhydra Python Zope Perl Apache
LinuxBSD...
