New portion of improvements for Dual-Pivot Quicksort
Vladimir Iaroslavski
iaroslavski at mail.ru
Wed May 12 10:12:47 UTC 2010
Hello Dmytro,
Could you please send new version of DPQ
with your changes?
Thanks,
Vladimir
Dmytro Sheyko wrote:
> Vladimir,
>
> Your changes are good for me.
>
> Additionally I have some comments/proposals regarding dealing with
> negative zeros.
>
> 1. Scanning for the first zero we can avoid range check (i >= left) if
> we have at least one negative value.
> --- DualPivotQuicksort.java Tue May 11 09:04:19 2010
> +++ DualPivotQuicksortS.java Wed May 12 12:10:46 2010
> @@ -1705,10 +1705,15 @@
> }
>
> // Find first zero element
> - int zeroIndex = findAnyZero(a, left, n);
> + int zeroIndex = 0;
>
> - for (int i = zeroIndex - 1; i >= left && a[i] == 0.0f; i--) {
> - zeroIndex = i;
> + if (a[left] < 0.0f) {
> + zeroIndex = findAnyZero(a, left, n);
> +
> + // there is at least one negative value, so range check is
> not needed
> + for (int i = zeroIndex - 1; /*i >= left &&*/ a[i] == 0.0f;
> i--) {
> + zeroIndex = i;
> + }
> }
>
> // Turn the right number of positive zeros back into negative zeros
>
> 2. We can find the position of the first zero by counting negative
> values during preprocessing phase.
> --- DualPivotQuicksort.java Tue May 11 09:04:19 2010
> +++ DualPivotQuicksortC.java Wed May 12 12:01:24 2010
> @@ -1678,7 +1678,7 @@
> * Phase 1: Count negative zeros and move NaNs to end of array.
> */
> final int NEGATIVE_ZERO = Float.floatToIntBits(-0.0f);
> - int numNegativeZeros = 0;
> + int numNegativeZeros = 0, numNegativeValues = 0;
> int n = right;
>
> for (int k = left; k <= n; k++) {
> @@ -1689,6 +1689,8 @@
> } else if (ak != ak) { // i.e., ak is NaN
> a[k--] = a[n];
> a[n--] = Float.NaN;
> + } else if (ak < 0.0f) {
> + numNegativeValues++;
> }
> }
>
> @@ -1705,7 +1707,7 @@
> }
>
> // Find first zero element
> - int zeroIndex = findAnyZero(a, left, n);
> + int zeroIndex = numNegativeValues;
>
> for (int i = zeroIndex - 1; i >= left && a[i] == 0.0f; i--) {
> zeroIndex = i;
>
> 3. We can use binary search to find the first zero and thus avoid linear
> scan.
> --- DualPivotQuicksort.java Tue May 11 09:04:19 2010
> +++ DualPivotQuicksortF.java Wed May 12 12:03:58 2010
> @@ -1705,11 +1705,7 @@
> }
>
> // Find first zero element
> - int zeroIndex = findAnyZero(a, left, n);
> -
> - for (int i = zeroIndex - 1; i >= left && a[i] == 0.0f; i--) {
> - zeroIndex = i;
> - }
> + int zeroIndex = findFirstZero(a, left, n);
>
> // Turn the right number of positive zeros back into negative zeros
> for (int i = zeroIndex, m = zeroIndex + numNegativeZeros; i <
> m; i++) {
> @@ -1718,7 +1714,7 @@
> }
>
> /**
> - * Returns the index of some zero element in the specified range via
> + * Returns the index of the first zero element in the specified
> range via
> * binary search. The range is assumed to be sorted, and must contain
> * at least one zero.
> *
> @@ -1726,18 +1722,17 @@
> * @param low the index of the first element, inclusive, to be searched
> * @param high the index of the last element, inclusive, to be searched
> */
> - private static int findAnyZero(float[] a, int low, int high) {
> - while (true) {
> + private static int findFirstZero(float[] a, int low, int high) {
> + while (low < high) {
> int middle = (low + high) >>> 1;
> float middleValue = a[middle];
>
> if (middleValue < 0.0f) {
> low = middle + 1;
> - } else if (middleValue > 0.0f) {
> - high = middle - 1;
> - } else { // middleValue == 0.0f
> - return middle;
> + } else { // middleValue >= 0.0f
> + high = middle;
> }
> + return low;
> }
> }
>
> Counting negative values appeared more expensive than any other variants.
> The last proposal seems to me as efficient as the current solution is in
> its worst case - when we have only one negative zero (in the half of array).
> And it shows the best result if we have many zeros.
>
> Regards,
> Dmytro Sheyko
>
> > From: iaroslavski at mail.ru
> > To: jjb at google.com; dmytro_sheyko at hotmail.com
> > CC: core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net; iaroslavski at mail.ru
> > Subject: Re[2]: New portion of improvements for Dual-Pivot Quicksort
> > Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 23:51:27 +0400
> >
> > Josh,
> > Dmytro,
> >
> > I have done more thoroughly testing "great - less > 5 * seventh" vs.
> "less < e1 && great > e5",
> > and found that more symmetric code "less < e1 && great > e5" is
> little bit faster, ~0.5..0.7%
> > on both VMs. Other code has not been changed.
> >
> > Please, take the latest version in attachment.
> >
> > Vladimir
> >
> > Tue, 4 May 2010 21:57:42 -0700 письмо от Joshua Bloch <jjb at google.com>:
> >
> > > Vladimir,
> > >
> > > Old:
> > >
> > >298 if (less < e1 && great > e5) {
> > >
> > > New:
> > >
> > >256 if (great - less > 5 * seventh) {
> >
> > >Regards,
> > >Josh
More information about the core-libs-dev
mailing list