This document describes a stable bottom-up adaptive merge sort named quadsort. A visualisation and benchmarks are available at the bottom.
At the core of quadsort is the quad swap. Traditionally most sorting algorithms have been designed using the binary swap where two variables are sorted using a third temporary variable. This typically looks as following.
if (val[0] > val[1])
{
swap[0] = val[0];
val[0] = val[1];
val[1] = swap[0];
}Instead the quad swap sorts four variables at once. During the first stage the four variables are partially sorted in the four swap variables, in the second stage they are fully sorted back to the original four variables.
╭─╮ ╭─╮ ╭─╮ ╭─╮
│A├─╮ ╭─┤S├────────┬─────────┤?├─╮ ╭───┤F│
╰─╯ │ ╭─╮ │ ╰─╯ │ ╰┬╯ │ ╭┴╮ ╰─╯
├───┤?├───┤ │ ╭──╯ ╰───┤?│
╭─╮ │ ╰─╯ │ ╭─╮ │ │ ╰┬╯ ╭─╮
│A├─╯ ╰─┤S├────────│────────╮ ╰───┤F│
╰─╯ ╰┬╯ │ ││ ╰─╯
╭┴╮ ╭─╮ ╭┴╮ ╭─╮ ││
│?├─┤F│ │?├─┤F│ ││
╰┬╯ ╰─╯ ╰┬╯ ╰─╯ ││
╭─╮ ╭┴╮ │ ││ ╭─╮
│A├─╮ ╭─┤S├────────│───────╯│ ╭───┤F│
╰─╯ │ ╭─╮ │ ╰─╯ │ ╰─╮ ╭┴╮ ╰─╯
├───┤?├───┤ │ │ ╭───┤?│
╭─╮ │ ╰─╯ │ ╭─╮ │ ╭┴╮ │ ╰┬╯ ╭─╮
│A├─╯ ╰─┤S├────────┴─────────┤?├─╯ ╰───┤F│
╰─╯ ╰─╯ ╰─╯ ╰─╯This process is visualized in the diagram above.
After the first round of sorting a single if check determines if the four swap variables are sorted in-order, if that's the case the swap finishes up immediately. Next it checks if the swap variables are sorted in reverse-order, if that's the case the sort finishes up immediately. If both checks fail the final arrangement is known and two checks remain to determine the final order.
This eliminates 1 wasteful comparison for in-order sequences while creating 1 additional comparison for random sequences. However, in the real world we are rarely comparing truly random data, so in any instance where data is more likely to be orderly than disorderly this shift in probability will give an advantage.
In C the basic quad swap looks as following:
if (val[0] > val[1])
{
swap[0] = val[1];
swap[1] = val[0];
}
else
{
swap[0] = val[0];
swap[1] = val[1];
}
if (val[2] > val[3])
{
swap[2] = val[3];
swap[3] = val[2];
}
else
{
swap[2] = val[2];
swap[3] = val[3];
}
if (swap[1] <= swap[2])
{
val[0] = swap[0];
val[1] = swap[1];
val[2] = swap[2];
val[3] = swap[3];
}
else if (swap[0] > swap[3])
{
val[0] = swap[2];
val[1] = swap[3];
val[2] = swap[0];
val[3] = swap[1];
}
else
{
if (swap[0] <= swap[2])
{
val[0] = swap[0];
val[1] = swap[2];
}
else
{
val[0] = swap[2];
val[1] = swap[0];
}
if (swap[1] <= swap[3])
{
val[2] = swap[1];
val[3] = swap[3];
}
else
{
val[2] = swap[3];
val[3] = swap[1];
}
}There are however several problems with the simple quad swap above. If an array is already fully sorted it writes a lot of data back and forth from swap unnecessarily. If an array is fully in reverse order it will change 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 to 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 which reduces the degree of orderliness rather than increasing it.
To solve these problems the quad swap needs to be implemented in-place.
Reverse order data is typically handled using a simple reversal function, as following.
int reverse(int array[], int start, int end, int swap)
{
while (start < end)
{
swap = array[start];
array[start++] = array[end];
array[end--] = swap;
}
}While random data can only be sorted using n log n comparisons and n log n moves, reverse-order data can be sorted using n comparisons and n moves through run detection. Without run detection the best you can do is sort it in n comparisons and n log n moves.
Run detection, as the name implies, comes with a detection cost. Thanks to the laws of probability a quad swap can cheat however. The chance of 4 random numbers having the order 4 3 2 1 is 1 in 24. So when sorting random data we'll only make a wasteful run check in 4.16% of cases.
What about run detection for in-order data? While we're turning n log n moves into n moves with reverse order run detection, we'd be turning 0 moves into 0 moves with forward run detection. So there's no point in doing so.
The next optimization is to write the quad swap in such a way that we can perform a simple check to see if the entire array was in reverse order, if so, the sort is finished.
One final optimization, reverse order handling is only beneficial on runs longer than 4 elements. When no reverse order run is detected the next 4 elements are merged with the first 4 elements. This reduces the chance of a wasteful run check to 2.08%.
At the end of the loop the array has been turned into a series of ordered blocks of 8 elements.
Traditionally mergesorts would merge two blocks to swap memory, then copy them back to main memory.
main memory ┌────────┐┌────────┐
└────────┘└────────┘
↓ merge ↓
swap memory ┌──────────────────┐
└──────────────────┘
↓ copy ↓
main memory ┌──────────────────┐
└──────────────────┘
This doubles the amount of moves and we can fix this by merging 4 blocks at once using a ping-pong merge like so:
main memory ┌────────┐┌────────┐┌────────┐┌────────┐
└────────┘└────────┘└────────┘└────────┘
↓ merge ↓ ↓ merge ↓
swap memory ┌──────────────────┐┌──────────────────┐
└──────────────────┘└──────────────────┘
↓ merge ↓
main memory ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐
└──────────────────────────────────────┘
Just like with the quad swap it is beneficial to check whether the 4 blocks are in-order.
In the case of the 4 blocks being in-order the merge operation is skipped, as this would be pointless. Because reverse order data is handled in the quad swap there is no need to check for reverse order blocks.
This allows quadsort to sort in-order sequences using n comparisons instead of n * log n comparisons.
A parity merge takes advantage of the fact that if you have two n length arrays, you can fully merge the two arrays by performing n merge operations on the start of each array, and n merge operations on the end of each array. The arrays must be of exactly equal length.
The main advantage of a parity merge over a traditional merge is that the loop of a parity merge can be fully unrolled.
Since the parity merge can be unrolled it's very suitable for branchless optimizations to speed up the sorting of random data. Another advantage is that two separate memory regions can be accessed in the same loop with no additional overhead. This makes the routine up to 2.5 times faster on random data.
The following is a visualization of an array with 256 random elements getting turned into sorted blocks of 32 elements using ping-pong parity merges.
While a branchless parity merge sorts random data faster, it sorts ordered data slower.
To deal with this the quad merge works in a similar way to the quad swap. Instead of merging the ends of two arrays two items at a time, it merges four items at a time.
┌───┐┌───┐┌───┐ ┌───┐┌───┐┌───┐ ╭───╮ ┌───┐┌───┐┌───┐
│ A ││ B ││ C │ │ X ││ Y ││ Z │ ┌───│B<X├──┤ A ││ B ││C/X│
└─┬─┘└─┬─┘└───┘ └─┬─┘└─┬─┘└───┘ │ ╰─┬─╯ └───┘└───┘└───┘
└────┴─────────────┴────┴───────────────┘ │ ╭───╮ ┌───┐┌───┐┌───┐
└──│A>Y├──┤ X ││ Y ││A/Z│
╰─┬─╯ └───┘└───┘└───┘
│ ┌───┐┌───┐┌───┐
└────│A/X││X/A││B/Y│
└───┘└───┘└───┘
When merging ABC and XYZ it first checks if B is smaller or equal to X. If that's the case A and B are copied to swap. If not, it checks if A is greater than Y. If that's the case X and Y are copied to swap.
If either check is false it's known that the two remaining distributions are A X and X A. This allows performing an optimal branchless merge. Since it's known each block still has at least 1 item remaining (B and Y) and there is a high probability of the data to be random, another (sub-optimal) branchless merge can be performed.
In C this looks as following:
while (l < l_size - 1 && r < r_size - 1)
{
if (left[l + 1] <= right[r])
{
swap[s++] = left[l++];
swap[s++] = left[l++];
}
else if (left[l] > right[r + 1])
{
swap[s++] = right[r++];
swap[s++] = right[r++];
}
else
{
a = left[l] > right[r];
x = !a;
swap[s + a] = left[l++];
swap[s + x] = right[r++];
s += 2;
}
}Overall the quad merge gives a decent performance gain.
Quadsort will merge blocks of 8 into blocks of 32, which it will merge into blocks of 128, 512, 2048, 8192, etc.
For each ping-pong merge quadsort will perform two comparisons to see if it will be faster to parity merge or quad merge, and pick the best option.
When sorting an array of 33 elements you end up with a sorted array of 32 elements and a sorted array of 1 element in the end. If a program sorts in intervals it should pick an optimal array size (32, 128, 512, etc) to do so.
To minimalize the impact the remainder of the array is sorted using a tail merge.
The main advantage of a tail merge is that it allows reducing the swap space of quadsort to n / 2 and that the quad merge strategy works best on arrays of different lengths. It also greatly simplifies the ping-pong merge routine which only needs to work on arrays of equal length.
By using rotations the swap space of quadsort is reduced further from n / 2 to n / 4. Rotations can be performed with minimal performance loss by using monobound binary searches and trinity / bridge rotations.
┌───────────────────────┐┌───────────────────────┐
│comparisons ││swap memory │
┌───────────────┐├───────┬───────┬───────┤├───────┬───────┬───────┤┌──────┐┌─────────┐┌─────────┐
│name ││min │avg │max ││min │avg │max ││stable││partition││adaptive │
├───────────────┤├───────┼───────┼───────┤├───────┼───────┼───────┤├──────┤├─────────┤├─────────┤
│mergesort ││n log n│n log n│n log n││n │n │n ││yes ││no ││no │
├───────────────┤├───────┼───────┼───────┤├───────┼───────┼───────┤├──────┤├─────────┤├─────────┤
│quadsort ││n │n log n│n log n││1 │n │n ││yes ││no ││yes │
├───────────────┤├───────┼───────┼───────┤├───────┼───────┼───────┤├──────┤├─────────┤├─────────┤
│quicksort ││n log n│n log n│n² ││1 │1 │1 ││no ││yes ││no │
└───────────────┘└───────┴───────┴───────┘└───────┴───────┴───────┘└──────┘└─────────┘└─────────┘Quadsort makes n comparisons when the data is fully sorted or reverse sorted.
The C implementation of quadsort supports long doubles and 8, 16, 32, and 64 bit data types. By using pointers it's possible to sort any other data type, like strings.
Quadsort uses the same interface as qsort, which is described in man qsort.
By default quadsort uses n / 4 swap memory. If memory allocation fails quadsort will switch to sorting in-place through rotations.
Quadsort is one of the fastest merge sorts written to date. It is faster than quicksort for most data distributions, with the notable exception of generic data.
On arrays exceeding the L1 cache quicksort has an advantage due to its ability to partition. For small arrays quadsort has a significant advantage due to quicksort's inability to cost effectively pick a reliable pivot.
-
blitsort is a quadsort based rotate merge sort. It aims to be the fastest in-place stable sort.
-
fluxsort is a hybrid stable quicksort / quadsort with improved performance on random data. It is currently the fastest comparison sort for random data.
-
gridsort is a hybrid cubesort / quadsort. Gridsort makes O(n) moves rather than the typical O(n log n) moves. It is the fastest online sort and might be of interest to those interested in data structures.
-
twinsort is a simplified quadsort with a much smaller code size. Twinsort might be of use to people who want to port or understand quadsort; it does not use pointers or gotos.
-
wolfsort is a hybrid radixsort / fluxsort with improved performance on random data. It's mostly a proof of concept that only works on unsigned 32 and 64 bit integers. It's possibly the fastest radix sort for 32 bit integers, overall fluxsort is faster for 64 bit integers.
I personally invented the quad swap, quad merge, parity merge, branchless parity merge, monobound binary search, bridge rotation, and trinity rotation.
The ping-pong merge had been independently implemented in wikisort prior to quadsort, and likely by others as well.
Special kudos to Musiccombo and Co for getting me interested in rotations and branchless logic.
In the visualization below nine tests are performed on 256 elements.
- Random order
- Ascending order
- Ascending Saw
- Generic random order
- Descending order
- Descending Saw
- Random tail
- Random half
- Ascending tiles.
The upper half shows the swap memory and the bottom half shows the main memory. Colors are used to differentiate various operations. Quad swaps are in cyan, reversals in magenta, skips in green, parity merges in orange, bridge rotations in yellow, and trinity rotations are in violet.
There's also a YouTube video of a java port of quadsort in ArrayV on a wide variety of data distributions.
The following benchmark was on WSL 2 gcc version 7.5.0 (Ubuntu 7.5.0-3ubuntu1~18.04)
using the wolfsort benchmark.
The source code was compiled using g++ -O3 -w -fpermissive bench.c. Stablesort is g++'s std:stablesort function. Each test was ran 100 times
on 100,000 elements. A table with the best and average time in seconds can be uncollapsed below the bar graph.
data table
| Name | Items | Type | Best | Average | Reps | Samples | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| stablesort | 100000 | 32 | 0.006050 | 0.006073 | 1 | 100 | random order |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.002677 | 0.002690 | 1 | 100 | random order |
| timsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.007572 | 0.007591 | 1 | 100 | random order |
| stablesort | 100000 | 32 | 0.003881 | 0.003904 | 1 | 100 | random % 100 |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.002324 | 0.002337 | 1 | 100 | random % 100 |
| timsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.005563 | 0.005590 | 1 | 100 | random % 100 |
| stablesort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000652 | 0.000673 | 1 | 100 | ascending |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000071 | 0.000071 | 1 | 100 | ascending |
| timsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000070 | 0.000070 | 1 | 100 | ascending |
| stablesort | 100000 | 32 | 0.001346 | 0.001411 | 1 | 100 | ascending saw |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000777 | 0.000783 | 1 | 100 | ascending saw |
| timsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000866 | 0.000872 | 1 | 100 | ascending saw |
| stablesort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000798 | 0.000817 | 1 | 100 | pipe organ |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000336 | 0.000339 | 1 | 100 | pipe organ |
| timsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000191 | 0.000192 | 1 | 100 | pipe organ |
| stablesort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000893 | 0.000905 | 1 | 100 | descending |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000056 | 0.000057 | 1 | 100 | descending |
| timsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000101 | 0.000101 | 1 | 100 | descending |
| stablesort | 100000 | 32 | 0.001346 | 0.001371 | 1 | 100 | descending saw |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000777 | 0.000792 | 1 | 100 | descending saw |
| timsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000860 | 0.000865 | 1 | 100 | descending saw |
| stablesort | 100000 | 32 | 0.002018 | 0.002073 | 1 | 100 | random tail |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000892 | 0.000899 | 1 | 100 | random tail |
| timsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.002013 | 0.002027 | 1 | 100 | random tail |
| stablesort | 100000 | 32 | 0.003524 | 0.003572 | 1 | 100 | random half |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.001588 | 0.001596 | 1 | 100 | random half |
| timsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.004023 | 0.004037 | 1 | 100 | random half |
| stablesort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000973 | 0.001010 | 1 | 100 | ascending tiles |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000859 | 0.000866 | 1 | 100 | ascending tiles |
| timsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000941 | 0.001028 | 1 | 100 | ascending tiles |
The following benchmark was on WSL 2 gcc version 7.5.0 (Ubuntu 7.5.0-3ubuntu1~18.04)
using the wolfsort benchmark.
The source code was compiled using g++ -O3 -w -fpermissive bench.c. It measures the performance on random data with array sizes
ranging from 8 to 524288. The benchmark is weighted, meaning the number of repetitions
halves each time the number of items doubles. A table with the best and average time in seconds can be uncollapsed below the bar graph.
data table
| Name | Items | Type | Best | Average | Reps | Samples | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| stablesort | 8 | 32 | 0.006182 | 0.006221 | 65536 | 100 | random 8 |
| quadsort | 8 | 32 | 0.001628 | 0.001644 | 65536 | 100 | random 8 |
| timsort | 8 | 32 | 0.006378 | 0.006680 | 65536 | 100 | random 8 |
| stablesort | 32 | 32 | 0.009514 | 0.009653 | 16384 | 100 | random 32 |
| quadsort | 32 | 32 | 0.003978 | 0.004041 | 16384 | 100 | random 32 |
| timsort | 32 | 32 | 0.013349 | 0.013524 | 16384 | 100 | random 32 |
| stablesort | 128 | 32 | 0.012961 | 0.013043 | 4096 | 100 | random 128 |
| quadsort | 128 | 32 | 0.005179 | 0.005270 | 4096 | 100 | random 128 |
| timsort | 128 | 32 | 0.019949 | 0.020191 | 4096 | 100 | random 128 |
| stablesort | 512 | 32 | 0.016774 | 0.016886 | 1024 | 100 | random 512 |
| quadsort | 512 | 32 | 0.006800 | 0.006895 | 1024 | 100 | random 512 |
| timsort | 512 | 32 | 0.024646 | 0.024794 | 1024 | 100 | random 512 |
| stablesort | 2048 | 32 | 0.020439 | 0.020530 | 256 | 100 | random 2048 |
| quadsort | 2048 | 32 | 0.008351 | 0.008394 | 256 | 100 | random 2048 |
| timsort | 2048 | 32 | 0.028911 | 0.029043 | 256 | 100 | random 2048 |
| stablesort | 8192 | 32 | 0.024204 | 0.024298 | 64 | 100 | random 8192 |
| quadsort | 8192 | 32 | 0.009967 | 0.010036 | 64 | 100 | random 8192 |
| timsort | 8192 | 32 | 0.033020 | 0.033134 | 64 | 100 | random 8192 |
| stablesort | 32768 | 32 | 0.028113 | 0.028206 | 16 | 100 | random 32768 |
| quadsort | 32768 | 32 | 0.011645 | 0.011692 | 16 | 100 | random 32768 |
| timsort | 32768 | 32 | 0.037227 | 0.037328 | 16 | 100 | random 32768 |
| stablesort | 131072 | 32 | 0.032113 | 0.032197 | 4 | 100 | random 131072 |
| quadsort | 131072 | 32 | 0.013344 | 0.013388 | 4 | 100 | random 131072 |
| timsort | 131072 | 32 | 0.041431 | 0.041528 | 4 | 100 | random 131072 |
| stablesort | 524288 | 32 | 0.036110 | 0.036244 | 1 | 100 | random 524288 |
| quadsort | 524288 | 32 | 0.015046 | 0.015115 | 1 | 100 | random 524288 |
| timsort | 524288 | 32 | 0.045705 | 0.045935 | 1 | 100 | random 524288 |
The following benchmark was on WSL 2 gcc version 7.5.0 (Ubuntu 7.5.0-3ubuntu1~18.04). The source code was compiled using gcc -O3 bench.c. Each test was ran 10 times. It's generated by running the benchmark using 100000 100 1 as the argument. In the benchmark quadsort is compared against glibc qsort() using the same general purpose interface and without any known unfair advantage, like inlining. A table with the best and average time in seconds can be uncollapsed below the bar graph.
data table
| Name | Items | Type | Best | Average | Compares | Samples | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| qsort | 100000 | 64 | 0.016627 | 0.016772 | 1536381 | 100 | random string |
| quadsort | 100000 | 64 | 0.010863 | 0.011007 | 1644811 | 100 | random string |
| Name | Items | Type | Best | Average | Compares | Samples | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| qsort | 100000 | 128 | 0.019124 | 0.019406 | 1536363 | 100 | random order |
| quadsort | 100000 | 128 | 0.010822 | 0.010880 | 1644759 | 100 | random order |
| Name | Items | Type | Best | Average | Compares | Samples | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| qsort | 100000 | 64 | 0.009291 | 0.009415 | 1536491 | 100 | random order |
| quadsort | 100000 | 64 | 0.004251 | 0.004274 | 1645227 | 100 | random order |
| Name | Items | Type | Best | Average | Compares | Samples | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| qsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.008499 | 0.008737 | 1536634 | 100 | random order |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.003601 | 0.003622 | 1644990 | 100 | random order |
| qsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.006451 | 0.006695 | 1532324 | 100 | random % 100 |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.003275 | 0.003310 | 1584431 | 100 | random % 100 |
| qsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.002263 | 0.002440 | 815024 | 100 | ascending order |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000177 | 0.000179 | 99999 | 100 | ascending order |
| qsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.003034 | 0.003123 | 915020 | 100 | ascending saw |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.001102 | 0.001115 | 453277 | 100 | ascending saw |
| qsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.002450 | 0.002519 | 884462 | 100 | pipe organ |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000556 | 0.000561 | 328066 | 100 | pipe organ |
| qsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.002451 | 0.002620 | 853904 | 100 | descending order |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000145 | 0.000146 | 99999 | 100 | descending order |
| qsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.003224 | 0.003402 | 953892 | 100 | descending saw |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.001093 | 0.001108 | 465432 | 100 | descending saw |
| qsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.003860 | 0.004043 | 1012003 | 100 | random tail |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.001275 | 0.001286 | 570057 | 100 | random tail |
| qsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.005576 | 0.005832 | 1200707 | 100 | random half |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.002192 | 0.002218 | 976716 | 100 | random half |
| qsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.003901 | 0.004281 | 1209200 | 100 | ascending tiles |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.002930 | 0.003014 | 1020412 | 100 | ascending tiles |
| qsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.004512 | 0.005459 | 1553378 | 100 | bit reversal |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.003265 | 0.003298 | 1704981 | 100 | bit reversal |
The following benchmark was on WSL 2 gcc version 7.5.0 (Ubuntu 7.5.0-3ubuntu1~18.04). The source code was compiled using gcc -O3 bench.c. Each test was ran 100 times. It's generated by running the benchmark using 1000000 0 0 as the argument. The benchmark is weighted, meaning the number of repetitions halves each time the number of items doubles. A table with the best and average time in seconds can be uncollapsed below the bar graph.
data table
| Name | Items | Type | Best | Average | Compares | Samples | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| qsort | 8 | 32 | 0.009393 | 0.010391 | 17 | 100 | random 8 |
| quadsort | 8 | 32 | 0.003489 | 0.003504 | 21 | 100 | random 8 |
| qsort | 32 | 32 | 0.014392 | 0.015333 | 121 | 100 | random 32 |
| quadsort | 32 | 32 | 0.006165 | 0.006362 | 146 | 100 | random 32 |
| qsort | 128 | 32 | 0.019507 | 0.020682 | 745 | 100 | random 128 |
| quadsort | 128 | 32 | 0.008249 | 0.008440 | 840 | 100 | random 128 |
| qsort | 512 | 32 | 0.024801 | 0.025837 | 3968 | 100 | random 512 |
| quadsort | 512 | 32 | 0.009946 | 0.010153 | 4388 | 100 | random 512 |
| qsort | 2048 | 32 | 0.029895 | 0.030677 | 19962 | 100 | random 2048 |
| quadsort | 2048 | 32 | 0.011792 | 0.011903 | 21641 | 100 | random 2048 |
| qsort | 8192 | 32 | 0.035080 | 0.036282 | 96149 | 100 | random 8192 |
| quadsort | 8192 | 32 | 0.013840 | 0.014034 | 102965 | 100 | random 8192 |
| qsort | 32768 | 32 | 0.040274 | 0.041420 | 450105 | 100 | random 32768 |
| quadsort | 32768 | 32 | 0.015838 | 0.016109 | 477571 | 100 | random 32768 |
| qsort | 131072 | 32 | 0.045464 | 0.047044 | 2062601 | 100 | random 131072 |
| quadsort | 131072 | 32 | 0.017921 | 0.018207 | 2172670 | 100 | random 131072 |
| qsort | 524288 | 32 | 0.050499 | 0.051669 | 9298689 | 100 | random 524288 |
| quadsort | 524288 | 32 | 0.019855 | 0.020284 | 9739167 | 100 | random 524288 |
The following benchmark was on WSL 2 gcc version 7.5.0 (Ubuntu 7.5.0-3ubuntu1~18.04)
using the wolfsort benchmark.
The source code was compiled using g++ -O3 -w -fpermissive bench.c. Pdqsort is a branchless
quicksort/insertionsort hybrid. Each test was ran 100 times on 100,000 elements. Comparisons
are fully inlined. A table with the best and average time in seconds can be uncollapsed below the bar graph.
data table
| Name | Items | Type | Best | Average | Compares | Samples | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pdqsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.002686 | 0.002705 | 1 | 100 | random order |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.002680 | 0.002695 | 1 | 100 | random order |
| pdqsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000780 | 0.000788 | 1 | 100 | random % 100 |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.002325 | 0.002342 | 1 | 100 | random % 100 |
| pdqsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000099 | 0.000099 | 1 | 100 | ascending |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000068 | 0.000069 | 1 | 100 | ascending |
| pdqsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.003373 | 0.003387 | 1 | 100 | ascending saw |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000777 | 0.000788 | 1 | 100 | ascending saw |
| pdqsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.002834 | 0.002853 | 1 | 100 | pipe organ |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000337 | 0.000338 | 1 | 100 | pipe organ |
| pdqsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000202 | 0.000206 | 1 | 100 | descending |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000060 | 0.000060 | 1 | 100 | descending |
| pdqsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.003416 | 0.003429 | 1 | 100 | descending saw |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000775 | 0.000782 | 1 | 100 | descending saw |
| pdqsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.002586 | 0.002603 | 1 | 100 | random tail |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000899 | 0.000906 | 1 | 100 | random tail |
| pdqsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.002647 | 0.002664 | 1 | 100 | random half |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.001591 | 0.001601 | 1 | 100 | random half |
| pdqsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.002312 | 0.002328 | 1 | 100 | ascending tiles |
| quadsort | 100000 | 32 | 0.000892 | 0.000905 | 1 | 100 | ascending tiles |