I hate bubblesort

[Simon Tatham, 2023-12-06]

Many years ago, my employer used to use “Can you name any sorting algorithms?” as a quickie interview question.

I’m something of a sorting-algorithms nerd, which is a quality that often comes with strong opinions. My personal prejudice (although I did my best not to let it affect the outcome of the interview) was that I was always extra pleased if our candidate listed a handful of well-known algorithm names and didn’t mention bubblesort.

Why? Because I hate it. Bubblesort is an awful sorting algorithm, and I wish people would stop teaching it.

The sorting-algorithms landscape

Seen from a long way up in the air, the landscape of sorting algorithms consists basically of three categories:

Well-known O(N2) algorithms: insertion sort, selection sort, bubblesort.
Well-known O(N log N) algorithms: quicksort, heapsort, mergesort.
More advanced stuff: introsort, smoothsort, special-purpose things that rely on the keys being integers or uniformly distributed, etc.

(Yes, there are lots of ways you might quibble with this analysis. For example, what about the quadratic-time worst case of quicksort? And what about shellsort, somewhere in between the first two categories? And if you’re in a frivolous mood you might even object to me leaving out the joke algorithms, like bogosort and slowsort. So yes, this picture is a gross simplification, but it’s enough for my current purposes.)

An obvious question, looking at this list, is: what’s the point of the first category? Why would anyone use a quadratic-time algorithm when faster ones are available? Aren’t they just as pointless as the joke algorithms?

Reasons to use a quadratic sorting algorithm: simplicity

One obvious answer is that the quadratic-time algorithms are generally much simpler. They require less code; they’re easier to remember; there are fewer ways to get them wrong.

So if you’re coding under very serious space constraints, and trying to cram a sorting algorithm into the tiniest possible amount of space in some embedded device’s ROM, then it may be a better idea to implement, say, selection sort than heapsort, simply because it will fit.

And if in some highly improbable scenario you’re caught without a standard library, out of touch with your reference materials, and you need to sort something using only the knowledge currently in your brain, you might very well decide you have a better chance of not messing up one of those really simple three-line algorithms than getting all the edge cases right in heapsort.

A more realistic case is that if you’re teaching sorting algorithms, it makes sense to start your students off on a really simple one before diving into the complicated ones. (Especially since then they can do the experiment of comparing the running times of both, and see for themselves how one scales worse than the other.)

Reasons to use a quadratic sorting algorithm: as a subroutine

Also, some of the quadratic-time algorithms have genuinely practical uses, as subroutines in more complicated sorting operations.

Insertion sort is O(N2) in the worst case for a fully general input list, but it guarantees far better performance than that in the situation where every element is at most a short distance from its correct position. For this reason, it’s used as the final pass of shellsort, because the effect of the previous passes was to get the array into exactly the kind of ‘nearly sorted’ state where insertion sort does perform well.

Insertion sort also has the great virtue of being stable: input items that compare equal are not reordered. (This can be important if the part of the object you’re using as the sort criterion is not the whole of the object.) That doesn’t help in shellsort, which has already broken stability in its earlier passes; but for this reason insertion sort (on small sublists of the input) is often used as the first pass of mergesort, which is a faster sorting algorithm that does preserve stability throughout.

Selection sort has neither of those advantages, but it has a totally different virtue: although it uses O(N2) comparisons, you can implement it so that it uses only O(N) swaps. (Do nothing but comparisons until you’ve found the element you want to put in position 0; do a single swap to put it there; then never touch it again. Repeat on the rest of the array.) For this reason, it finds occasional uses in situations where you’re sorting huge objects by a simple criterion, so that the swaps are much more expensive than the comparisons.

For example: in at least one of the really complicated systems for making mergesort work in-place on the input array, there’s a step in which you divide the array of N elements into about √N blocks of size √N, and sort those entire blocks by their first element. In this case, selection sort is just what you want, because the cost of a swap scales with the input array, i.e. they can get unboundedly expensive. So you use selection sort in this ‘minimal swaps’ style, and that way, the total work done by all the swaps is linear in the total size of the array. And meanwhile, it doesn’t matter that selection sort uses a quadratic number of comparisons, because the number of elements it’s sorting is √N, and squaring that only gets you back to N. So this whole step runs in linear time, and it wouldn’t if you used any other sorting algorithm, not even the ones that look obviously better!

Bubblesort has no practical virtues

I’ve just listed some virtues of two of the well-known quadratic-time algorithms. But I didn’t list any similar virtues of bubblesort. That’s because, as far as I know, it has none, or at least none that the other quadratic-time algorithms don’t do better.

One way to look at bubblesort is that it’s essentially a form of selection sort, in that each pass brings another element to its final position and never moves it again. But it’s selection sort implemented with as many swaps as possible, rather than as few as possible – so it’s thrown away the only performance virtue of selection sort.

On the other hand, bubblesort tries to have some of the same virtues as insertion sort: it’s stable (if you write the comparison carefully), and it can terminate early if the input was already sorted, or ‘nearly sorted’, in that you can stop as soon as one of your passes performs no swaps. But insertion sort also has those properties, and its notion of ‘nearly sorted’ is more useful – the types of input list on which insertion sort can beat quadratic time are more likely to actually come up than the ones for which bubblesort terminates early.

So bubblesort isn’t useful as a subroutine in any other sorting algorithm that I know of, or in any other specialist situation. If it has any uses at all, it’s only useful for its simplicity.

Bubblesort isn’t even a good teaching sort

And indeed, the usual place that bubblesort comes up is in teaching, because people have the idea that it’s the simplest, or most intuitive, sorting algorithm, so they teach it first.

I don’t think even that is true!

I think that there’s nothing unintuitive about selection sort. “Find the smallest thing and move it to position 0. Then find the next smallest thing and move it to position 1, and so on.” This is surely one of the simplest, and most easily comprehensible, sorting concepts that you can imagine.

Compared to that, bubblesort is actually more complicated, because it works for the same reason (it essentially is a form of selection sort), but instead of that being instantly obvious from the algorithm description, it’s a property you have to prove. The “keep iterating until done” structure doesn’t even obviously guarantee that the algorithm terminates: that’s something you have to prove too (e.g. by showing that in every pass at least one element reaches its final position, or maybe by showing that every swap strictly decreases the total number of misordered pairs). Maybe that makes it a useful exercise in proof by induction, or something? But what it doesn’t make it is the simplest sorting algorithm.

I myself encountered bubblesort before any other sort, on the ZX Spectrum’s ‘Horizons’ educational software tape in the early 1980s. Some years later (when I still hadn’t learned any fancy sort algorithms yet) I saw a school friend write a sort routine in BBC BASIC using two nested FOR loops containing a conditional swap, which turned out to be a form of selection sort. My friend didn’t know why it worked; he just knew that this was the easiest piece of code to remember by rote that will sort things properly. And I agreed – it’s easier to remember than bubblesort, and I switched to doing it his way!

If you want to start by teaching the simplest possible sorting algorithm, I think selection sort is it (without bothering to minimise swaps). If you prefer a slightly more interesting one so that you can talk about early termination and/or stability, insertion sort is good.


A quadratic-time sorting algorithm can be useful in teaching. But I think bubblesort isn’t the best choice.

Some quadratic-time sorting algorithms also have uses in special situations, where they unexpectedly become the best choice for something. But bubblesort is never the best choice in that situation either.

Bubblesort is never the best choice. For anything. Let’s stop pointlessly filling up space in people’s minds with it!


Shortly after I posted this, someone brought to my attention an interesting blog post by Hillel Wayne, also on the subject of whether bubblesort is ever useful, dated two days before this. I hadn’t seen that post when I wrote this one, and the close timing is purely coincidental! Nothing in this post is intended as a response to that one. But if you’d like further reading on this topic, there’s a link for you.