Sorting algorithms benchmark

[Stewart Gordon]

Deewiant Wrote:

<snip>
> That's exactly what's confusing me.  I suppose the reason you 
> need that call is that you're not counting the number of swaps 
> made in the loop, and you're stopping just when the gap is 1, 
> not when swaps are also zero.  Which I think makes the 
> algorithm a bit different, since the number of "combs" you do 
> is limited to once per gap size, plus the one bubble sort 
> after you're done.

It's more the other way round - calling bubble sort is the way I chose to implement the passes of gap size 1.  It saves having to maintain a swap flag during the passes of gap > 1.

> I added my comb sort 11 implementation to your benchmark, and 
> it's noticeably faster for random data than your comb sort, at 
> least on my machine.  So something's different, to be sure.  
> Even without the optimization related to gap size 11, mine is 
> faster.
<snip>

That appears to be because you've implemented the optimum shrink factor.  If I change my implementation to use it as well, it runs at about the same speed as yours.

Stewart.