Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- public:how_parkrun_volunteers_sort_barcodes_-_a_computer_scientist_s_perspective [2018/12/28 03:12] – fangfufu
+++ public:how_parkrun_volunteers_sort_barcodes_-_a_computer_scientist_s_perspective [2018/12/28 11:17] – [Sorting individual buckets using insertion sort] fangfufu
@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 The first stage establishes a partial ordering [(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partially_ordered_set)] of the original data structure (all of the barcodes) - there is ordering amongst the buckets, but there is no ordering within each bucket. To establish total ordering [(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order)], each bucket need to be sorted using comparison sort.
-==== Sorting individual buckets ====
+==== Sorting individual buckets using insertion sort ====
 Different worker threads (volunteers) tend to use different sorting algorithm. Personally I use insertion sort, which is a comparison sort.
@@ Line 98: / Line 98: @@
 However there are some physical optimisation which I made. I collapsed consecutive sorted barcodes into clusters. This is because physically inserting a barcode involves moving all the adjacent barcodes, which takes quite a bit of effort on a rough surface. The two figures below illustrate what I meant:
-<columns 100% - - >
+<columns 100% 50% 50% >
 <WRAP centeralign>
 //Uncollapsed barcodes, they became a bit unwieldy to shuffle around. //
+{{:public:parkrun:20181225_102455.jpg?400}}
 </WRAP>
-{{ :public:parkrun:20181225_102455.jpg?400 |}}
 <newcolumn>
 <WRAP centeralign>
-//Partially collapsed clusters of consecutive barcodes, it was much easier to perform insertion. //
+//Partially collapsed clusters of consecutive barcodes, this made it much easier to perform insertion. //
-</WRAP>
-{{ :public:parkrun:20181225_103446.jpg?400 |}}
+{{:public:parkrun:20181225_103446.jpg?400}}
+</WRAP>
 </columns>