Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (462515)	3/10/2009 3:02:37 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574753

"I'm sure some people use sorts today, but in the kind of work I do you would never explicitly call one." Most of the applications which use them are better implemented with a database language these days. And the include the ability to sort as part of the language. The few times I needed to sort something, say ordering a list of objects of some sort, there were, at most, maybe 100 of them and a bubble sort was just fine. These days, most of the activity in algorithms are in randomized algorithms. Most of the others that have been unsolved are at least NP hard with conventional techniques. Randomized algorithms, though, offer the hope of breaking away from NP hard or NPC traps. The problem though, is that you often can't set a hard upper bound with a randomized algorithm, at best you get a probability distribution. The big win, though, is that randomized algorithms are usually highly parallelizable. Since you don't carry a lot of state information, they are often light weight. A good example which you might be familiar with is the Quicksort. If the pivot is selected randomly, suddenly your upper bound goes from O(n^2) to O(nlogn). That isn't usually considered to be a randomized algorithm, but it does show how randomized techniques can increase performance and simplify the algorithm.