Re: Slightly faster java.util.Arrays.byteSort(byte[])

[Vladimir Yaroslavskiy]

>I'm not an expert, however, while your OCA (see below) is being processed I
>would recommend to provide more comprehensive stats. Different lengths of an
>array, different flavours of data: sorted, sorted in the reverse order, random,
>typical expected case(s), etc.
>
>It seems that this particular functionality ( sort(byte[] ) hasn't changed since
>the JDK 8. However, you should probably add the current JDK to your comparison.
>
>One necessary step towards making this eligible for inclusion in the JDK would
>be to sign the OCA
>
>     https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/community/oca-486395.html
>
>Keep in mind that it is not by any means a guarantee that your change will be
>included. Once the OCA has been signed and processed, the code then can be
>discussed and evaluated by experts.
>
>-Pavel
>
>> On 14 Jun 2019, at 16:34, Rodion Efremov < coderodd3 at gmail.com > wrote:
>> 
>> Good evening!
>> 
>> I managed to improve the JDK 8 java.util.Arrays.sort(byte[])
>> performance-wise [1]. The (warmed up) demonstration program produces more
>> or less optimistic results on arrays of 1e8 bytes:
>> 
>> seed = 1560526264738
>> java.util.Arrays.sort(byte[]) in 87.643701 milliseconds.
>> java.util.Arrays.parallelSort(byte[]) in 301.329701 milliseconds.
>> net.coderodde.Arrays.sort(byte[]) in 62.0763 milliseconds.
>> Algorithms agree: true
>> 
>> I would like to hear any comments on how to make it eligible for inclusion
>> in JDK.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Rodion E.
>> 
>> References:
>> [1] https://gist.github.com/coderodde/493407bc1c57352b53c2aa18b5c9a7a8
Hi Rodion,
I'm working on the new version of Arrays.sort() / Arrays.parallelSort() which is under review.
I will look on your version and provide my comments.
Thank you,
Vladimir