Re: [boost] Integer sorting

Subject: Re: [boost] Integer sorting
From: Fenil Mehta (fenilgmehta_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-02-03 13:23:30

Thank you for your detailed analysis.
I will review your feedback and take corrective actions as required.

If you don't mind, can you share the script or the C++ program you have
used to test the performance of all the algorithms for various input array
conditions so that I can do the same in future before any review requests.
Please tell how did you measure the memory usage and running time for each
algorithm.

Regards,
Fenil Mehta

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:46 PM Francisco José Tapia via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi Fenil,
>
>
> I examined and ran your code. About it we have two perspectives
>
>
>    - Internal, about the algorithm. The Steven’s opinion is the most
>    qualified about the algorithm. He signed several lacks that must be
>    resolved, before any serious consideration.
>    - External. Test the algorithm and measure the speed, the memory used,
>    The documentation and the code. I had seen a couple of questions
>
>
> 1.- The documentation is really poor. You need to explain questions about
> the worst case, the memory used. The goal of any documentation is help to
> the user to understand and run the code. If you write a documentation where
> explain something, and the final user don’t understand. It is not a good
> documentation
>
> 2.- The organization of the code is messy. You must include in the code a
> .cpp file. This can be a problem in a separate compilation where several
> files use your code, and include the .cpp file
>
> 3.- In the command line to compile your code don’t use any optimization
> parameter. It is strange, talk about the speed, and don’t use the
> optimization
>
> 4.- I run your code with the other algorithms of the Boost Sort library
>
>
> 100 000 000 uint64_t random numbers
>
>
> Fastest-Integer-Sort 3.79 secs  1565M used
>
> pdq_sort             3.89 secs   785M used
>
> spreadsort           4.79 secs   785M used
>
> spin_sort            9.60 secs  1175M used
>
> flat_stable_sort    10.68 secs   788M used
>
>
> According this your code have a small difference with pdq_sort, but use the
> double of memory
>
>
> 5.- Many times the data are near sorted. Typically, adding data to the
> begin or the end of the data sorted, or same element inside is changed.
> It’s important detect and use this to reduce the time needed.
>
> The results obtained was
>
>
> ************************************************************
>
> **               B O O S T S O R T                        **
>
> **           S I N G L E T H R E A D                      **
>
> **      I N T E G E R   B E N C H M A R K                 **
>
> **                                                        **
>
> **     SORT OF 100 000 000 NUMBERS OF 64 BITS            **
>
> ************************************************************
>
> [ 1 ] std::sort  [ 2 ] pdqsort          [ 3 ] std::stable_sort
>
> [ 4 ] spin_sort  [ 5 ] flat_stable_sort [ 6 ] timsort
>
> [ 7 ] spreadsort [ 8 ] Fastest-Integer-S
>
>
>                     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
> |
>
>                     | [ 1 ]| [ 2 ]| [ 3 ]| [ 4 ]| [ 5 ]| [ 6 ]| [ 7 ]| [ 8
> ]|
>
>
> --------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
>
> random              | 8.17 | 3.89 |10.17 | 9.60 |10.68 |12.46 | 4.79 | 3.79
> |
>
>                     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
> |
>
> sorted              | 1.94 | 0.14 | 2.95 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.54
> |
>
> sorted + 0.1% end   | 6.21 | 2.85 | 2.94 | 0.53 | 0.37 | 0.20 | 3.78 | 3.78
> |
>
> sorted + 1% end     |10.65 | 3.33 | 3.07 | 0.69 | 0.50 | 0.32 | 4.02 | 3.76
> |
>
> sorted + 10% end    | 7.64 | 4.12 | 3.91 | 1.47 | 1.40 | 1.35 | 4.79 | 4.12
> |
>
>                     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
> |
>
> sorted + 0.1% mid   | 4.70 | 3.20 | 3.14 | 1.97 | 2.54 | 2.25 | 3.78 | 3.79
> |
>
> sorted + 1% mid     | 4.37 | 3.56 | 3.29 | 2.27 | 3.18 | 2.84 | 4.28 | 3.86
> |
>
> sorted + 10% mid    | 6.36 | 4.70 | 5.17 | 4.13 | 5.65 | 6.27 | 5.79 | 4.69
> |
>
>                     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
> |
>
> reverse sorted      | 1.46 | 0.28 | 3.30 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 1.47 | 0.54
> |
>
> rv sorted + 0.1% end| 7.30 | 2.90 | 3.33 | 0.65 | 0.43 | 0.27 | 3.47 | 3.82
> |
>
> rv sorted + 1% end  | 5.09 | 3.32 | 3.38 | 0.79 | 0.56 | 0.39 | 3.78 | 3.82
> |
>
> rv sorted + 10% end | 4.68 | 4.15 | 4.30 | 1.58 | 1.46 | 1.44 | 4.82 | 4.19
> |
>
>                     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
> |
>
> rv sorted + 0.1% mid| 4.77 | 3.26 | 3.16 | 1.97 | 2.56 | 2.28 | 3.82 | 3.83
> |
>
> rv sorted + 1% mid  | 4.38 | 3.55 | 3.27 | 2.29 | 3.19 | 2.85 | 4.29 | 3.86
> |
>
> rv sorted + 10% mid | 6.37 | 4.62 | 5.08 | 4.11 | 5.53 | 6.19 | 5.64 | 4.57
> |
>
>
> --------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
>
> jue ene 31 15:06:13 CET 2019
>
> .
>
>
> If you admit my guidance. You have the most important qualities, energy and
> initiative. But must learn some important questions. Be rigorous and
> strict, check deeply your code. Is someone find a fail in your code, that
> you didn’t detect, must be unacceptable for you.
>
>
> If you are looking for something to work, consider that if many people is
> working about it, except if you have a brilliant new idea, you will
> discover, after a lot of work, that your results are similar. Study, read,
> learn, and when the adequate idea pass in front your eyes, catch it, and
> work hard.
>
> Yours
>
>
> Francisco Tapia
>
> El vie., 25 ene. 2019 a las 1:40, Steven Ross via Boost (<
> boost_at_[hidden]>) escribió:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 4:09 AM Fenil Mehta via Boost
> > <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I communicate with this E-mail account only: fenilgmehta_at_[hidden]
> > > I have no other E-mail account.
> > >
> > > Please forgive me for my mistyped time complexity, I have corrected it
> to
> > > O(nk). I am not quite good at calculating the time complexity. Hence
> > there
> > > may be an error in my time complexity but the sorting idea is good.
> > >
> > > I have been working on my project for the past 6 months and it was for
> > the
> > > first time I heard about ska_sort. When I read its implementation, it
> had
> > > already implemented what I was planning to do in the near future.
> > > I could not find ska_sort in the Boost library which I had recently
> > > installed. If someone could throw some light on this, then it would be
> > > greatly appreciated.
> > > I completely agree that ska_sort is highly optimized. For all arrays of
> > > primary data types(like int, float, char) or small objects(like
> > > pair<int,int>) ska_sort performance is the best. However, for arrays of
> > > large objects, ir_sort is better.
> > >
> > > The test cases are generated completely randomly. I do not know the
> test
> > > cases at all when I make the comparison. The source code for test case
> > > generation is there on the GitHub[1], you can scrutinize it and a
> snippet
> > > is as follows:
> > >     // here I pass a vector for arr
> > >     template<typename T>
> > >     void fillRandArray(T &arr, const int64_t &low, const int64_t &high,
> > > const int64_t &randStart, const int64_t &randEnd) {
> > >         std::random_device rd;
> > >         std::mt19937_64 gen(rd());
> > >         std::uniform_int_distribution<ArrayIndexType> dis(randStart,
> > > randEnd);
> > >
> > >         for (int64_t i = low; i <= high; i++) arr[i] = dis(gen);
> > >     }
> > >
> > > As of my claims, let me give the clear details of the input.
> > > ir_sort is faster when I tested it for an array of objects of size =
> > > 1000*64 bits, and array length = 2000 only.
> > > I have to test it for other conditions.
> >
> > I test using this random number generation approach (in addition to
> > the worst-case analysis):
> > https://github.com/boostorg/sort/blob/master/example/randomgen.cpp
> >
> > So that I can vary the range in both the top and bottom 2 bytes of a
> > 4-byte integer.  The same data can be cast to 8-byte if you wish.
> > I use this script to run through the various combinations of
> > distributions and different data types:
> > https://github.com/boostorg/sort/blob/master/tune.pl
> > tune.pl is also capable of tuning constants to the processor with the
> > -tune option.
> >
> > The optimal sorting approach varies based on input array size, data
> > distribution, processor, and data type.  2000 randomly-distributed
> > elements should fit in L1 cache and be split evenly by a single radix
> > pass; the optimal approach for more complicated distributions and
> > millions of elements, sorted data, or for 256 elements may be quite
> > different.  spreadsort is optimized to provide good performance across
> > all these cases (for 256 elements it just uses pdqsort).
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Steven, at present I have only implemented the swapping optimization
> for
> > > integers only. ir_sort is in the beginning phase. Once it finalized for
> > > integers, I will plan a solution for other data types.
> > > I have not looked much at the worst case distribution. At present, I am
> > > testing it for random distributions. I will have a look at the worst
> > > scenario and mostly sorted data.
> > > For memory overhead, it will require two integer arrays of size "n",
> and
> > > probably it can be reduced to a single array of size "n".
> >
> > Spreadsort uses just the input array and kilobytes of RAM overhead for
> > the bins.  For large amounts of data the RAM overhead can be
> > important.  Your swapping approach would probably need to change if
> > you sorted in-place.
> >
> > > I agree that these algorithms have been designed keeping generality as
> > the
> > > focus. However, generally, objects are indexed based on integers,
> keeping
> > > this in mind I decided to write ir_sort.
> > >
> > > The reason it is way faster for large object arrays is that I only make
> > "n"
> > > swaps to sort the array. I use indexes to reduce the overhead of
> > swapping.
> > > I believe the swapping optimization I have written is not limited to
> > > ir_sort, it can be used along with other sorting algorithms to improve
> > > their running speed for large objects.
> > >
> > > Francisco, thank you for your quick response. I wait for your feedback.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/fenilgmehta/Fastest-Integer-Sort/blob/b11ae9ddb3c9cc7e9d141817bb31409bf51e59c7/test/raw_data_generator_integer.cpp#L155
> > > [2] https://github.com/fenilgmehta/Fastest-Integer-Sort/
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Fenil Mehta
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:18 PM Steven Ross via Boost <
> > boost_at_[hidden]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fenil,
> > > >
> > > > Based on the description, this looks like spreadsort without the
> worst
> > case
> > > > analysis, and with a new swapping optimization (I know there is room
> > for
> > > > improvement in the swapping).  I expect this algorithm will perform
> > > > significantly worse than std::sort (or pdqsort) in the worst-case
> > > > situations, without applying similar worst-case analysis.  spreadsort
> > is
> > > > comparable to std::sort in the worst case distribution for spreadsort
> > > > because of careful analysis and threshold optimization.  If you
> > tweaked the
> > > > spreadsort constants
> > > > <
> > > >
> >
> https://github.com/boostorg/sort/blob/master/include/boost/sort/spreadsort/detail/constants.hpp
> > > > >
> > > > I
> > > > think you should be able to get comparable performance to your
> > algorithm,
> > > > minus the impact of your swapping optimization.
> > > > How does your swapping optimization perform on mostly-sorted data?
> > > > spreadsort does well in this common case relative to std::sort, which
> > is
> > > > somewhat tricky with in-place radix sorting.
> > > > You should try seeing how your algorithm performs on the
> distributions
> > in
> > > > https://github.com/boostorg/sort/blob/master/example/alrbreaker.cpp
> > and
> > > >
> >
> https://github.com/boostorg/sort/blob/master/example/binaryalrbreaker.cpp,
> > > > tweaking those to hit your worst case.
> > > > What's the memory overhead?
> > > > What's the threshold size at which it starts becoming faster than
> > std::sort
> > > > and pdqsort?  comparison-based sorting is surprisingly fast on small
> > lists
> > > > of integers that fit on L1 cache.
> > > > How well does it handle common prefixes in string sorting?
> > string_sort is
> > > > optimized to handle that case extremely quickly.  It's a serious
> > > > performance issue if you don't optimize for it.
> > > >
> > > > I wish more people realized the generality of these algorithms; if
> you
> > > > really want a fast sort, you can use spreadsort (or an equivalent
> > > > algorithm), you just need to define a way to index into the key.
> This
> > was
> > > > published a while ago in Engineering Radix Sort, but most people use
> > > > comparison sorts because they're easier to use (and for most
> > applications,
> > > > sorting compute time is minor).
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 3:29 AM Francisco José Tapia via Boost <
> > > > boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Fenil,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am Francisco Tapia, one of the maintainers of the Sort Library.
> > > > >
> > > > > I had been watching your code, and find it interesting. But give
> me a
> > > > week
> > > > > to say you something. These days I am very busy, and I expect to
> have
> > > > time
> > > > > the next weekend, and examine and test your code.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yours
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Francisco Tapia
> > > > >
> > > > > El lun., 21 ene. 2019 a las 8:41, Richard Hodges via Boost (<
> > > > > boost_at_[hidden]>) escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 at 03:36, Fenil Mehta via Boost <
> > > > > boost_at_[hidden]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have written a sorting algorithm which is way faster than
> > std::sort
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > all array size.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl
> Sagan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The link is as follows:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/fenilgmehta/Fastest-Integer-Sort
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some guidance would be appreciated on how to improve the
> project
> > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > and the steps to get it included in boost.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Fenil Mehta
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> > > > > > > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Richard Hodges
> > > > > > hodges.r_at_[hidden]
> > > > > > office: [phone]
> > > > > > home: [phone]
> > > > > > mobile: [phone] (this will be *expensive* outside Andorra!)
> > > > > > skype: madmongo
> > > > > > facebook: hodges.r
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> > > > > > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> > > > > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> > > > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>