Plot of Data From Bubble Sort Lab

0. 2 Plot of data from Bubble Sort, Quick Sort Set 1, and Quick Sort Set 2 Qui c k Sor t 1 Qui ck Sor t 2 Bubbl eSor t 0. 18 Execut i ont i me( seconds) 0. 16 0. 14 0. 12 0. 1 0. 08 0. 06 0. 04 0. 02 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Setnumber( 16) Figure 1: Graph for question 6 Answer to question 7: The execution for Bubble sort is noticeably very low compared to the two instances of QuickSort, which are markedly higher. Interestingly, the QuickSort1 seems to start with a much higher execution time than QuickSort2. I believe this can be attributed to the fact that the first sets may not be cached or loaded in memory when the program first runs, whereas the remaining sets are. At any rate, the graph indicates that QuickSort1 started with a higher execution time, implying it did more work at the beginning. Overall, however, it seems QuickSort2 had a higher execution time. This actually makes sense when we consider that all of the elements in QuickSort2 are already sorted and we start with the first element. This actually would make more work for the algorithm. QuickSort generally has a complexity of nlogn with a worst-case complexity n^2 because it is recursive. When sorting an already sorted list, the program has to unnecessarily cycle through loops several times, which is only made worse by starting with the first element which is the smallest. Thus, it spends unnecessary time attempting to find a value that needs to be sorted, and presumably its complexity meets the worst case scenario of n^2 (or so the graph indicates). Interestingly, the Bubble sort also has a complexity of n^2, though it still seems to require less execution time than either QuickSort, and almost appears linear in nature.