quadsort

> For MSD, do you get a performance hit from putting your stack on the heap (to avoid overflow on recursion)? I'm not sure. My original C++ implementation which is for non-adversarial inputs puts the array containing histograms and indices on the heap but uses the stack for a handful of locals, so it would explode if you passed the wrong thing. The sort it's based on in the parallel-string-sorting repo works the same way. Oops! > cache misses & memory pressure due to potentially long input elements (and thus correspondingly large stack) I think this should be okay? The best of these sorts try to visit the actual strings infrequently. You'd achieve worst-case cache performance by passing a pretty large number of strings with a long, equal prefix. Ideally these strings would share the bottom ~16 bits of their address, so that they could evi

https://github.com/scandum/quadsort/blob/f171a0b26cf6bd6f6dc... As you can see, quadsort 1.1.4.1 used 2 instead of 4 writes in the bi-directional parity merges. This was in June 2021, and would have compiled as branchless with clang, but as branched with gcc. When I added a compile time check to use ternary operations for clang I was not adapting your work. I was well aware that clang compiled ternary operations as branchless, but I wasn't aware that rust did as well. I added the compile time check to use ternary operations for a fair performance comparison against glidesort. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/scandum/fluxsort/main/imag... As for ipnsort's small sort, it is very similar to quadsort's small sort, which uses stable sorting networks, instead of unstable sorting networks. From my perspective it's not exactly novel. I didn't go

In the code it looks like the seed to the benchmark can be provided as the 4th command line argument if necessary: https://github.com/scandum/quadsort/blob/master/src/bench.c#...

TLDR: A visualisation of how QuadSort adaptively combines various novel strategies to achieve the best performance on a wide variety of inputs: https://github.com/scandum/quadsort#visualization Benchmarks of how it beats qsort, Timsort, pdqsort etc.: https://github.com/scandum/quadsort#benchmark-quadsort-vs-st... Is it called esoteric just because it's complex?

Similar strategy. Wolfsort is stable however while SpreadSort does not appear to be so. I wonder if wolfsort is stable and faster because it utilizes quadsort? https://github.com/scandum/quadsort

Swap space is allocated here: https://github.com/scandum/quadsort/blob/c3bcf139c59eb296b28...