I have implemented some of the well known algorithms in python, java and c++. There is a test for every language to compare the speed of algorithms. Java algorithms was tested in Eclipse and for c++ in Visual Studio.
This is just the basis for sorting algorithms, so feel free to add new implementations of other sorting algorithms in any language you like.
As expected O(n^2) algorithms like bubble sort, selection sort and insertion sort are much slower in comparison to O(nlogn) algorithms like heap sort, merge sort or quick sort.
Although it is unfair to compare languages like this directly, because the speed of execution mostly depends on compilers and interpreters and their optimizations, python was the slowest, and java and c++ performed almost the same (some algorithms are faster in java and others in c++).
So here are the results for sorting first N numbers, where N does't exceed 10^5 for O(n^2) algorithms and 10^8 for faster ones:
- PYTHON
| algorithm | N= 10 000 | N = 50 000 | N = 100 000 |
|---|---|---|---|
| bubble sort | 19.908 sec | 481.285 sec | 2022.921 sec |
| selection sort | 15.254 sec | 366.220 sec | 1511.231 sec |
| insertion sort | 12.208 sec | 302.285 sec | 1245.434 sec |
- JAVA
| algorithm | N= 10 000 | N = 50 000 | N = 100 000 |
|---|---|---|---|
| bubble sort | 0.173 sec | 4.345 sec | 17.359 sec |
| selection sort | 0.148 sec | 3.902 sec | 15.686 sec |
| insertion sort | 0.066 sec | 1.917 sec | 7.632 sec |
- C++
| algorithm | N= 10 000 | N = 50 000 | N = 100 000 |
|---|---|---|---|
| bubble sort | 0.161 sec | 4.253 sec | 17.257 sec |
| selection sort | 0.159 sec | 4.121 sec | 16.600 sec |
| insertion sort | 0.1329 sec | 2.63 sec | 10.503 sec |
- PYTHON
| algorithm | N= 1 000 000 | N = 10 000 000 | N = 100 000 000 |
|---|---|---|---|
| heap sort | 33.691 sec | 406.497 sec | too much :( |
| merge sort | 10.344 sec | 125.416 sec | .... |
| quick sort | 8.621 sec | 118.312 sec | .... |
| bucket sort | 0.221 sec | 2.714 sec | .... |
- JAVA
| algorithm | N= 1 000 000 | N = 10 000 000 | N = 100 000 000 |
|---|---|---|---|
| heap sort | 0.196 sec | 3.095 sec | 45.261 sec |
| merge sort | 0.207 sec | 3.155 sec | 31.644 sec |
| quick sort | 0.120 sec | 1.372 sec | 15.016 sec |
| bucket sort | 0.004 sec | 0.014 sec | 0.075 sec |
- C++
| algorithm | N= 1 000 000 | N = 10 000 000 | N = 100 000 000 |
|---|---|---|---|
| heap sort | 0.252 sec | 3.371 sec | 50.021 sec |
| merge sort | 0.501 sec | 3.706 sec | 39.602 sec |
| quick sort | 0.114 sec | 1.104 sec | 12.331 sec |
| bucket sort | 0.003 sec | 0.026 sec | 0.268 sec |
This was run on Intel i5-6300 CPU 2.5 GHz machine. Ofcourse, the results are always a bit different, but I tried to use average values without running a lot of tasks in the background. As you can see, java was faster than c++ in some cases, but at the end it really depends on what compliler and interpreters you are using and what optimizations are performed in a background.