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
Yes please. You haven't said anything about how it actually works...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk