3 ms·

I thought I was being totally clear, but seeing your comment and its upvotes, apparently not. What exactly did your "but" refer to? I think we're in complete ag

I thought I was being totally clear, but seeing your comment and its upvotes, apparently not. What exactly did your "but" refer to? I think we're in complete agreement... (I was trying to say: here's an example where properly using a fast-for-few-elements "toy" algorithm can improve real-world performance on a "serious" problem like sorting a big chunk of data. So big-O is not everything.)

chalst 16y ago
The point is that this improvement doesn't deliver a speed up that is significant only for small n, but a speed up everywhere. I agree that fast on small n does matter, it's just that this isn't an example.
- JoachimSchipper 16y ago
  Thanks for clarifying! (Still, you get a global speedup because the "inner" algorithm is fast for small n.)