From: "MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet)" Date: 2012-04-07T10:35:40+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:44173] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6256] Slightly improve ruby_qsort performance Issue #6256 has been updated by MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet). File rubyqisort4.patch added I could improve the Insertion Sort a bit by using memcpy/memmove. It runs a bit faster even with the "worst case detection" of Quicksort turned on, things look a little brighter now: $ ruby driver.rb -p bm_sort -r 10 ----------------------------------------------------------- benchmark results: name ruby 2.0.0dev (2012-04-05 trunk 35241) [x86_64-linux] sort_int 0.343 sort_int_custom 0.296 sort_int_rev 0.101 sort_int_sorted 0.090 sort_str_rnd 0.099 I also checked whether Binary Insertion Sort would bring additional improvement, it did not. This version performs slightly better now on all fronts and the patch needs a lot less additional code. ---------------------------------------- Feature #6256: Slightly improve ruby_qsort performance https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6256#change-25695 Author: MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet) Status: Assigned Priority: Low Assignee: MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet) Category: core Target version: 2.0.0 Hi all, I think I may have found a way to slightly improve the performance of ruby_qsort. Quicksort running time is slightly decreased if the recursion depth (or in our case, rather iteration depth) is bounded by leaving sub problems larger than or equal to some cutoff bound k untouched and running Insertion Sort on these small sub problems to finalize the sorting. I experimented with this, but to no avail, only marginal improvements if any. Then I remembered that instead of running Insertion Sort on each sub problem, it is equivalent in terms of running time to run one single Insertion Sort on the whole nearly sorted array as a final step. And in practice, this turns out to run faster than without the optimization. In my tests, execution time dropped to about 95% on average with an optimal cutoff (64-bit Fedora 15) [1]. Now this ain't the world - but it is faster, and I could very well imagine that there is still room for improving my code. In my tests, the optimal cutoff seems to be ~13 for Integers and ~8 for Strings and Symbols. I imagine the more costly the comparisons, the lower will be the optimal cutoff. I've tested only on 64 Bit yet, but I will do so for 32 Bit, too. If it turns out that this runs faster regardless of the architecture in use, with an optimal cutoff yet to be determined, do you think this would be a useful addition? I have attached a C extension for testing and discussing, it's mostly a one-to-one copy of the code in util.c. I just added mmassign and insertion_sort plus the few lines that respect the cutoff in rqsort (had to rename it, otherwise it would collide with the real "ruby_qsort"). -Martin [1] https://github.com/emboss/hybridsort/blob/master/hybrid-sort-results -- http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/