Timeline for Is there any sorting algorithm which is not inherently sequential and is task distributable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24, 2014 at 17:13 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 30, 2014 at 3:16 | |||||
| Jun 24, 2014 at 16:12 | answer | added | John Cowan | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 20:11 | answer | added | Lorenz Meyer | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 12:57 | comment | added | amon |
Huh? A merge-sort seems quite parallelizable to me: parts of the data can be pre-sorted in different threads/nodes and then combined in another one (compare also how the command-line sort works for large inputs). Usually, the pre-sort will have to complete before the merge, but that could be changed as well (consider a moronic sort algorithm that yields the minimal element in a collection and removes it until no elements are left).
|
|
| Dec 11, 2013 at 12:02 | comment | added | Knight Rider | @dan_waterworth : it exhibits data parallelism. Since, Same operation is done on different parts of data. | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 12:01 | answer | added | w.m | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 11:55 | comment | added | dan_waterworth | Does mergesort fit your criteria? | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 11:48 | comment | added | Knight Rider | @dan_waterworth: algorithm capable of exhibiting functional parallelism. | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 11:47 | vote | accept | Knight Rider | ||
| Dec 11, 2013 at 11:43 | comment | added | dan_waterworth | What do you mean by task distributable? | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 11:29 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
|
| Dec 11, 2013 at 11:26 | review | First posts | |||
| Dec 11, 2013 at 11:29 | |||||
| Dec 11, 2013 at 11:19 | answer | added | user40989 | timeline score: 13 | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 11:11 | history | asked | Knight Rider | CC BY-SA 3.0 |