1. Using a heap with Dijkstra's algorithm would speed up your program
From your comment I am guessing you are using Dijkstra's algorithm without a heap, which gives O(n * m) for one source, and O(n^2 * m) for all sources (all pairs shortest path), where n is the number of nodes/vertices, and m is the number of edges
You would be able to improve that to O(m * n * lgn) by using a heap, which improves the time to run it by quite a lot in practice
2. The time it takes to run the program also depends on the density of your matrix:
In the case where the graph is sparse: m ~ n, and will result in O(n^2 * lgn) (or O(n^3) without a heap)
In the case where the graph is dense: m ~ n^2, and will result in O(n^3 * lgn) (or O(n^4) without a heap)
Compare the numbers above to O(n^3), which is the time complexity of Floyd-Warshall
So just in terms of time complexity, Floyd-Warshall would be faster in a dense graph
Does he delve into the nuts and bolts of data structure for this, or does it stay more theoretical?
Video Lectures are here: https://www.coursera.org/learn/analysis-of-algorithms
and the book:
http://aofa.cs.princeton.edu/home/
Also a youtube - short history of algorithm analysis by Sedgewick is worth a watch:
I recently had a problem where I needed an adjacency matrix of shortest paths. It was a choice between dijkstra and floyd-warshall. My dijkstra implementation kicked the pants off of floyd warshall for this application by an order of magnitude, which you wouldn't really expect. And the big-O complexity was the same for both algorithms, it's just that for the graph structure, the operation count for dijkstra was much lower. It was the first one to brown up.