My apologies to Professor Neal.
Thank you for correcting me.
Best regards
Morgan
On Mon, 22 Mar 2021, 05:05 , wrote:
> I think it is "Professor Neal" :)
>
> I also appreciate the pqR comparisons.
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 09:23:15AM +, Morgan Morgan wrote:
> >Thank you Neal. This is inter
I think it is "Professor Neal" :)
I also appreciate the pqR comparisons.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 09:23:15AM +, Morgan Morgan wrote:
Thank you Neal. This is interesting. I will have a look at pqR.
Indeed radix only does C collation, I believe that is why it is not the
default choice for char
Thank you Neal. This is interesting. I will have a look at pqR.
Indeed radix only does C collation, I believe that is why it is not the
default choice for character ordering and sorting.
Not sure but I believe it can help address the following bugzilla item:
https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla/show
Those interested in faster sorting may want to look at the merge sort
implemented in pqR (see pqR-project.org). It's often used as the
default, because it is stable, and does different collations, while
being faster than shell sort (except for small vectors).
Here are examples, with timings, for
In principle, I agree that faster ranking/sorting algorithms are
important, and should be a priority.
But I can't help but feel that the paper focuses on textbook-oriented problems.
Given that in real world problems, there's almost always some form of
prior knowledge:
Wouldn't it be better, from a
Default method for sort is not radix(especially for character vector). You
might want to read the documentation of sort.
For your second question, I invite you to look at the code of fsort. It is
implemented only for positive finite double, and default to
data.table:::forder ... when the types are
Isn’t the default method now “radix” which is the data.table sort, and
isn’t that already parallel using openmp where available?
Avi
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:26 PM Morgan Morgan
wrote:
> Hi,
> I am not sure if this is the right mailing list, so apologies in advance if
> it is not.
>
> I found
