Re: [boost] [sort] Re: [review] Formal review period for Sort library begins today, November 10, and ends Wednesday, November 19

Subject: Re: [boost] [sort] Re: [review] Formal review period for Sort library begins today, November 10, and ends Wednesday, November 19
From: Steven Ross (spreadsort_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-10 18:24:05

Adam,

> > And finally, every review should attempt to answer this question:
> >
> > - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
>
> No. This library has potential, but is too specific for a what I would
> expect from a Sort library. I believe the only way to get something like
> this into boost is to provide Spreadsort as one among many algorithms.
> This will also allow benchmarks and comparisons to be performed among the
> various algorithms directly, as well as provide a foundation and building
> blocks for more advanced usage.
>
> As an aside, I am very interested in Spreadsort! I would like to see it
> available, definitely. But certainly there must be situations where other
> algorithms are a better fit.

I think LSD radix sort is a valid alternative because it's stable, and
possibly a stable hybrid radix sort.  Other possibilities are using sorting
networks instead of insertionsort for really small lists, and an algorithm
optimized for mostly sorted lists, but each of these has decreasing
marginal benefit.  The idea with this library is that you don't need to
worry about the algorithm, it uses radix and/or comparison based sorting as
best suits your problem.

The Perl script tune.pl provides a basic benchmarking and parameter tuning
setup.

Do you have a specific use case you'd like to use another algorithm for?