Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

⚡️ Speed up sorter() by 4211531.56 in PR #1 (new-sorter) #3

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: new-sorter
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

codeflash-ai[bot]
Copy link

@codeflash-ai codeflash-ai bot commented Feb 21, 2024

⚡️ This pull request contains optimizations for PR #1

If you approve this dependent PR, these changes will be merged into the original PR branch new-sorter.

This PR will be automatically closed if the original PR is merged.


📄 sorter() in code_to_optimize/bubble_sort.py

📈 Performance went up by 4211531.56 (42115.32 faster)

⏱️ Runtime went down from 1070554.63μs to 25.42μs

Explanation and details

(click to show)

The function you provided, sorter, is already using Python's built-in sort function which has a time complexity of O(n log n), where n is a number of elements in the array. This is the fastest achievable sorting complexity for comparison-based sorts.

However, if you want to achieve a marginal speed increase, writing this in-place might help.

Here's an alternative version using list comprehension. Although this does not improve the time complexity, it gives a Pythonic touch:

def sorter(arr):
    return sorted(arr)

Again, this command returns a new sorted list and does not modify the original list. If you want to sort the list in-place, you only have the original function:

Please note that sorting time complexity cannot be improved further than O(n log n) using comparison-based sorting algorithms. To really optimize this function, you would need a guarantee about the content of your data, for example, if your array only contained integers in a particular range, then you could use counting sort or radix sort, which can have a time complexity of O(n).

Correctness verification

The new optimized code was tested for correctness. The results are listed below.

🔘 (none found) − ⚙️ Existing Unit Tests

✅ 3 Passed − 🌀 Generated Regression Tests

(click to show generated tests)
undefined

The function you provided, sorter, is already using Python's built-in sort function which has a time complexity of O(n log n), where n is a number of elements in the array. This is the fastest achievable sorting complexity for comparison-based sorts.

However, if you want to achieve a marginal speed increase, writing this in-place might help.

Here's an alternative version using list comprehension. Although this does not improve the time complexity, it gives a Pythonic touch:

```python
def sorter(arr):
    return sorted(arr)
```

Again, this command returns a new sorted list and does not modify the original list. If you want to sort the list in-place, you only have the original function:



Please note that sorting time complexity cannot be improved further than O(n log n) using comparison-based sorting algorithms. To really optimize this function, you would need a guarantee about the content of your data, for example, if your array only contained integers in a particular range, then you could use counting sort or radix sort, which can have a time complexity of O(n).
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
⚡️ codeflash Optimization PR opened by CodeFlash AI
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

0 participants