On 2005-06-08 00:52, Colin Percival <cperciva_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > On 2005-06-08 09:25, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des_at_des.no> wrote: > >>That's because fts's sorting code is brain-dead. It starts by reading > >>the entire directory into a linked list, then copies that list into an > >>array which it passes to qsort(), and finally converts the array back > >>into a linked list. > > > > Is there a better way to sort a linked list > > How do you define "better"? You can merge-sort a singly-linked list > quite easily, but converting it to an array and back would probably > be faster. Better, in this case, would be any of: a. faster b. faster and less demanding in memory The red-black tree des mentioned is certainly faster to traverse, but not necessarily less demanding in memory. The memory load when a red-black tree is used will be amortized to a range of "add FTSENT" operations, so it seems nice :-)Received on Wed Jun 08 2005 - 06:02:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:36 UTC