Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [parallel_sort] Proposal
From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-02 04:57:40

Edouard A. wrote
> I just finished the first working version of parallel_sort.

> Current benchmarks on my Q6600 vs2008-64-bit default allocator:
> 2 threads : 160 % faster
> 4 threads : 260 % faster

So you're getting a super-linear speedup going from 1 to 2 processors?
That seems odd.

What size input does the benchmark relate to? I'm curious to know
whether you still get a worthwhile speedup for relatively small inputs.

> It can be heavily customized. I already offer the possibility to choose
> between quick sorting and merge sorting, and for quick sorting I offer two
> pivot algorithms : fast or secure. Then you can of course specify a
> predicate and a fallback sorting algorithm for when you run out of threads.

How about run-time selection between quicksort and mergesort, in the
style of introsort? This seems hard to beat in uniprocessor applications.

> Nevertheless, I think it's time to open up the code and start getting
> feedback.

Yes please. You haven't said anything about how it actually works...


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at