Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Mel Smith" Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: Modify Element Tag Question Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 22:19:14 -0600 Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <4faf23ae$0$2892$a8266bb1@newsreader.readnews.com> X-Trace: individual.net 5tRoFs1rNKAFkXdVkh1N+QGfP1yYiirSR2d0tofLVYt3nkCm131U8J0FVj2dX/D+NJ Cancel-Lock: sha1:yHrn3vj3yQD72A8+/jUBK1ysLaU= X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:14002 Dr. J said > Four seconds is quite a long time to sort 613 entries; in my P4/3G, FF12 > JavaScript can generate and sort a million random numbers in about 3.5 > seconds. And Batch sort seems to do 800 lines in a time verging on the > imperceptible. > > You might like to consider whether you are using bubblesort, and if so > look for something quicker. Try duplicating your data to 1226 entries; > of the sort now takes sixteen seconds, it's unnecessarily slow. > Otherwise, are you repeatedly swapping relatively large items? If so, > you might do better by sorting an array of index to item, in which the > indexes only are swapped. Dr. J: Scott Sauyet said this morning that running *my* page on *his* machine took less than a second ???? I'll look into why *my* clicking on one of the Sort buttons took nearly 4 secs to complete the sort, and then bold the new sort key. Hmmmm ... (btw, I use Win XP Pro (sp3), and Pentium 5 , 1.80 GHz with 1.99 GB of RAM ). -Mel Smith