On 3/22/07, Lewis Hyatt <lhyatt@princeton.edu> wrote:
Hi Sam-
-I think you have done a good job of identifying specific goals for the library at this point. The focus on radix sorts, multikey sorts, etc, could eventually produce something very valuable. But you need to write a coherent set of timings and test cases to demonstrate conclusively that your code is easy to use and is better than std::sort. Quoting theoretical arguments from some book is not enough; you need concrete test cases to establish this.
-Lewis
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Ok. Here are the results, copied directly from the console: Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] (C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>cd C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\Visual Studio 200 C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\Visual Studio 2005\Projects\SortTimings\debug>SortTimings Sorting 524287 floats Radix Sort: 371154 std::sort: 1477776 Sorting 524287 ints Radix Sort: 330806 std::sort: 1056781 C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\Visual Studio 2005\Projects\SortTimings\debug>cd .. C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\Visual Studio 2005\Projects\SortTimings>cd debug C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\Visual Studio 2005\Projects\SortTimings\debug>SortTimings Sorting 524287 floats Radix Sort: 369263 std::sort: 1481086 Sorting 524287 ints Radix Sort: 316077 std::sort: 1028627 C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\Visual Studio 2005\Projects\SortTimings\debug> The timings are in microseconds, and this is on a Pentium 4, with 2.66 GHz, on Microsoft Windows XP Professional. The example program is on vault, under RadixSort vs std sort.zip.