Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> I once thought sorting a linked list would be even faster than an array, 
> since moving elements around is so fast (no copying needed, just 
> changing the link). Then pretty quickly noticed how stupid that was; you 
> need to read elements to know *where* to move the elements, and reading 
> random elements is not fast...

Well, if the array elements are quite large, a linked list could 
arguably be faster. However, in that case you'd likely use an array of 
pointers, and any advantage is gone.

[I believe Warp has done some work on this question though...]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message