If you're going to make a big claim about sort speed, tell me how speed is better/worse for various data. How do the algorithms compare when the data is already ordered, when it's almost (but not quite) already ordered, when it's largely ordered, when it's completely random, and it's in the opposite order. This stuff, as well as the size of the dataset, is what we need to know in practice.
Rather than, or at least in addition to, raw measured speed on a specific piece of hardware, which is often affected in hard to understand ways by niche optimisation choices and nuances of specific hardware, I actually really like the choice to report how many comparisons your algorithm needed.
For example Rust's current unstable sort takes ~24 comparisons on average for each of 10^7 truly random elements to sort them all, but if instead all those elements are chosen (still at random) from only 20 possibilities, it only needs a bit more than five comparisons regardless of whether there are 10^3 elements or 10^7.
Unlike "On this Intel i6-9402J Multi Wazoo (Bonk Nugget Edition) here are my numbers" which is not very useful unless you also have the i6-9402J in that specific edition, these comparison counts get to a more fundamental property of the algorithm that transcends micro architecture quirks which will not matter next year.
"My boss wants to buy systems with the Intel i10-101010F Medium Core Platinum (with rowhammer & Sonic & Knuckles), can you buy this $20,000 box and test your program so I can write him a report?"
It does give some insight into what you seek, at least. For example, “We find that for smallern≲262144, JesseSort is slower than Python’s default sort.”
I’d like to see a much larger n but the charts in the research paper aren’t really selling JesseSort. I think as more and more “sorts” come out, they all get more niche. JesseSort might be good for a particular dataset size and ordering/randomness but from what I see, we shouldn’t be replacing the default Python sorting algorithm.
