<story><title>Stacksort – Searches StackOverflow for sorting functions and runs them (2013)</title><url>http://gkoberger.github.io/stacksort/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>diabeetusman</author><text>Would the algorithmic runtime of this be O(N)?</text></item><item><author>_ZeD_</author><text>this reminds me of the 4chan&amp;#x27;s sleepsort:
for each number $n in the array, spin a thread that sleeps $n and then append $n to the result array.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mortehu</author><text>The O(N log N) best case only applies to comparison sorts. What&amp;#x27;s described here is not a comparison sort, and could easily be made O(N) with radix sort if the size of the numeric type is constant.</text></comment>
<story><title>Stacksort – Searches StackOverflow for sorting functions and runs them (2013)</title><url>http://gkoberger.github.io/stacksort/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>diabeetusman</author><text>Would the algorithmic runtime of this be O(N)?</text></item><item><author>_ZeD_</author><text>this reminds me of the 4chan&amp;#x27;s sleepsort:
for each number $n in the array, spin a thread that sleeps $n and then append $n to the result array.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>bananasbandanas</author><text>No, the runtime complexity is just hidden in the scheduler of your OS</text></comment>