Re: [boost] [sorting] Is there still interest?

From: Paul Giaccone (paulg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-21 13:03:47

David Walthall wrote:
> After fixing those issues, I found that the radix_qsort and radix_sort 
> are slower than standard sort.  Maybe this is a result of when I 
> commented out the specializations of insertion and r_insertion?
>
> [...]
> Specs: Windows XP Professional x64 SP2, Visual C++ 7.1, Intel Xeon 
> dual core @ 2.66GHz, 2.0 GB RAM.
>
>
> Do you have anything that shows that your code beats std::sort?

Just a thought - is this code optimised? The compiler will go some way 
to optimising the code, and presumably David used the same optimisation 
flags in each implementation, but I wonder (I have not looked at the 
code), Sam, what you have done to optimise the code and whether there is 
anything else that can be done manually that the compiler is not smart 
enough to do itself. That's assuming that it's possible to optimise the 
code at all.

No doubt the standard library people have optimised their code to make 
it run as fast as possible, so optimisation is necessary if you are to 
beat the big guys.

Paul