Re: [boost] [sort] Re: [review] Formal review period for Sort library begins today, November 10, and ends Wednesday, November 1

Subject: Re: [boost] [sort] Re: [review] Formal review period for Sort library begins today, November 10, and ends Wednesday, November 1
From: Steven Ross (spreadsort_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-10 08:18:13

> I want to see scaling benchmarks comparing this implementation with
> the traditional STL containers for 0 to 10,000 items, for both single
> threaded and concurrent usage (even if that is simply a spinlock
> around the library).
>
> If these scaling benchmarks are not provided, I automatically vote
> no.

Niall, I'm not sure precisely what you're asking for, and would like
clarification:

Are you asking me to sort 0, 1, 2, 4, ... 2^14 elements, input in this form:
vector<int>
vector<float>
vector<string>
And compare the speeds of std::sort vs integer_sort, float_sort, and
string_sort, both sequentially, and doing multiple separate sorts in
parallel?
What distribution do you want this to sort?  Evenly distributed
random, the variety of distributions (including evenly distributed
random) used in tune.pl, or something else?

I'd like to note that if the input is <3000 elements, this library
immediately falls back to std::sort, as that is the approximate
crossover point at which hybrid radix sorting becomes faster.
Differences for arrays smaller than that are likely to be due to the
overhead of the size check + the increase in executable size, which is
likely to be difficult to separate out from noise.