From: Steven Ross (spreadsort_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-07 12:35:17
> > Three reasons:
> > 1) Mean performance across all testcases does not mean just Quicksort's
> > best-case. Heapsort is a good general algorithm, and improves the
> > performance even if it doesn't change much on random data.
> You're saying that by improving the worst cases, introsort improves the
> average. I guess the worst cases for median-of-3 quicksort are more
> common than I understood them to be? They would have to be pretty
> common to make introsort *significantly* faster on average, wouldn't
The best-case for median-of-3 quicksort assumes that the median-of-3 evenly
bisects the data. Depending upon the distribution, this is not a reasonable
If it divides the data roughly 1/4 - 3/4, it'll take roughly twice as long.
I would expect such uneven divisions to be relatively common.
If it divides 1/8-7/8, it'll take roughly three times as long, but will be
even worse if it always happens to one side.
These situations are far from the worst-case, but explain why even on
average, Quicksort is somewhat worse than Introsort, because some
distributions are uneven enough for Introsort to call Heapsort.
> > 2) Introsort also uses insertion_sort, which is really fast on small
> > data sets.
> Yeah, but that's essentially an implementation detail optimization.
> Many Quicksort implementations do the same thing. I don't believe that
> changes the overall big-O behavior.
No, it doesn't, but the overhead of finding the median becomes more
significant on overall performance on the smaller subsets, so it is a
significant implementation detail.
> > 3) In benchmark testing I find introsort to be about 3X as fast as the
> > library call. That should be the strongest argument of all.
> Well that's no surprise at all. You have to pay for a function call
> indirection with qsort.
Then why hasn't the compiler/library provider inlined the qsort call so the
uninformed don't have such a huge speed penalty?
I'm not claiming Introsort is vastly superior to Quicksort; I'm just saying
it is enough faster to be significant.
> >> You might consider why the STL provides binary search for forward
> >> iterators, then ;-)
> > That might save a little iteration over a search over every element, but
> > wouldn't it still be O(n)?
> It saves no iteration at all. It is O(n) iterator steps but O(log N)
> comparisons. If comparison is expensive enough, it adds up.
That sounds like a corner-case to me; somebody with a situation like that
might want to consider a radix sort, if they can radix-sort their data, and
a trie-like structure to minimize comparisons would probably save some
runtime. If radix-based operations were cheap enough relative to
comparisons, they might want a pure-radix sort and radix-based lookup.
> >> > Do you have a genuine desire for a real application to see a
> >> > bidirectional (or unidirectional) iterator version of a hybrid sort?
> I'm not trying to get you to do it. I'm just pointing out that
> std::sort is overconstrained and should at least be made to work on
> bidirectional iterators (or have its worst-case complexity bound
> tightened in the case of random access iterators, or both).
I thought about what would be required to make integer_sort work with
1) I would have to either eliminate the check to see whether the data set is
small enough that
std::sort would be better, require the user to provide a count of the
number of items being sorted, or be able to determine that the iterator
isn't random-access and thus not do the check.
2) I would have to eliminate recursive calls to std::sort, and instead use
an algorithm that works safely using the iterator I'm provided for recursive
comparison-based sorting calls.
3) I would need an inlined function call for going forward n places from an
iterator that takes constant time for a random access iterator, and the
minimum number of operations necessary for a more limited forward iterator.
With that said, it should add an additional pass through the data for a
Given all that, I can make integer_sort work off a forward iterator, without
impairing randomaccess iterator performance, and still having decent
performance for a forward iterator.
So if you can provide me all of these:
1) A way to determine that an iterator is not random-access.
2) An efficient generic comparison-based recursive algorithm that takes
forward iterators that is competitive with Introsort in performance.
3) An efficient way to go forward n steps from an iterator that is just as
fast as + n for a random access iterator, but also works for normal
Then I could make integer_sort work with a plain forward-iterator. I'd
still have to be able to swap elements.
For linked lists, a specialized version of Spreadsort would be significantly
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk