Analysis of Quickselect under Yaroslavskiy's Dual-Pivoting Algorithm

There is excitement within the algorithms community about a new partitioning method introduced by Yaroslavskiy. This algorithm renders Quicksort slightly faster than the case when it runs under classic partitioning methods. We show that this improved performance in Quicksort is not sustained in Quickselect; a variant of Quicksort for finding order statistics. We investigate the number of comparisons made by Quickselect to find a key with a randomly selected rank under Yaroslavskiy's algorithm. This grand averaging is a smoothing operator over all individual distributions for specific fixed order statistics. We give the exact grand average. The grand distribution of the number of comparison (when suitably scaled) is given as the fixed-point solution of a distributional equation of a contraction in the Zolotarev metric space. Our investigation shows that Quickselect under older partitioning methods slightly outperforms Quickselect under Yaroslavskiy's algorithm, for an order statistic of a random rank. Similar results are obtained for extremal order statistics, where again we find the exact average, and the distribution for the number of comparisons (when suitably scaled). Both limiting distributions are of perpetuities (a sum of products of independent mixed continuous random variables).Comment: full version with appendices; otherwise identical to Algorithmica versio

Analysis of pivot sampling in dual-pivot Quicksort: A holistic analysis of Yaroslavskiy's partitioning scheme

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00453-015-0041-7The new dual-pivot Quicksort by Vladimir Yaroslavskiy-used in Oracle's Java runtime library since version 7-features intriguing asymmetries. They make a basic variant of this algorithm use less comparisons than classic single-pivot Quicksort. In this paper, we extend the analysis to the case where the two pivots are chosen as fixed order statistics of a random sample. Surprisingly, dual-pivot Quicksort then needs more comparisons than a corresponding version of classic Quicksort, so it is clear that counting comparisons is not sufficient to explain the running time advantages observed for Yaroslavskiy's algorithm in practice. Consequently, we take a more holistic approach and give also the precise leading term of the average number of swaps, the number of executed Java Bytecode instructions and the number of scanned elements, a new simple cost measure that approximates I/O costs in the memory hierarchy. We determine optimal order statistics for each of the cost measures. It turns out that the asymmetries in Yaroslavskiy's algorithm render pivots with a systematic skew more efficient than the symmetric choice. Moreover, we finally have a convincing explanation for the success of Yaroslavskiy's algorithm in practice: compared with corresponding versions of classic single-pivot Quicksort, dual-pivot Quicksort needs significantly less I/Os, both with and without pivot sampling.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Pivot Sampling in Dual-Pivot Quicksort

The new dual-pivot Quicksort by Vladimir Yaroslavskiy - used in Oracle's Java runtime library since version 7 - features intriguing asymmetries in its behavior. They were shown to cause a basic variant of this algorithm to use less comparisons than classic single-pivot Quicksort implementations. In this paper, we extend the analysis to the case where the two pivots are chosen as fixed order statistics of a random sample and give the precise leading term of the average number of comparisons, swaps and executed Java Bytecode instructions. It turns out that - unlike for classic Quicksort, where it is optimal to choose the pivot as median of the sample - the asymmetries in Yaroslavskiy's algorithm render pivots with a systematic skew more efficient than the symmetric choice. Moreover, the optimal skew heavily depends on the employed cost measure; most strikingly, abstract costs like the number of swaps and comparisons yield a very different result than counting Java Bytecode instructions, which can be assumed most closely related to actual running time.Comment: presented at AofA 2014 (http://www.aofa14.upmc.fr/

Average Case and Distributional Analysis of Dual-Pivot Quicksort

In 2009, Oracle replaced the long-serving sorting algorithm in its Java 7 runtime library by a new dual-pivot Quicksort variant due to Vladimir Yaroslavskiy. The decision was based on the strikingly good performance of Yaroslavskiy's implementation in running time experiments. At that time, no precise investigations of the algorithm were available to explain its superior performance—on the contrary: previous theoretical studies of other dual-pivot Quicksort variants even discouraged the use of two pivots. In 2012, two of the authors gave an average case analysis of a simplified version of Yaroslavskiy's algorithm, proving that savings in the number of comparisons are possible. However, Yaroslavskiy's algorithm needs more swaps, which renders the analysis inconclusive. To force the issue, we herein extend our analysis to the fully detailed style of Knuth: we determine the exact number of executed Java Bytecode instructions. Surprisingly, Yaroslavskiy's algorithm needs sightly more Bytecode instructions than a simple implementation of classic Quicksort—contradicting observed running times. As in Oracle's library implementation, we incorporate the use of Insertionsort on small subproblems and show that it indeed speeds up Yaroslavskiy's Quicksort in terms of Bytecodes; but even with optimal Insertionsort thresholds, the new Quicksort variant needs slightly more Bytecode instructions on average. Finally, we show that the (suitably normalized) costs of Yaroslavskiy's algorithm converge to a random variable whose distribution is characterized by a fixed-point equation. From that, we compute variances of costs and show that for large n, costs are concentrated around their mean

Analysis of Branch Misses in Quicksort

The analysis of algorithms mostly relies on counting classic elementary operations like additions, multiplications, comparisons, swaps etc. This approach is often sufficient to quantify an algorithm's efficiency. In some cases, however, features of modern processor architectures like pipelined execution and memory hierarchies have significant impact on running time and need to be taken into account to get a reliable picture. One such example is Quicksort: It has been demonstrated experimentally that under certain conditions on the hardware the classically optimal balanced choice of the pivot as median of a sample gets harmful. The reason lies in mispredicted branches whose rollback costs become dominating. In this paper, we give the first precise analytical investigation of the influence of pipelining and the resulting branch mispredictions on the efficiency of (classic) Quicksort and Yaroslavskiy's dual-pivot Quicksort as implemented in Oracle's Java 7 library. For the latter it is still not fully understood why experiments prove it 10% faster than a highly engineered implementation of a classic single-pivot version. For different branch prediction strategies, we give precise asymptotics for the expected number of branch misses caused by the aforementioned Quicksort variants when their pivots are chosen from a sample of the input. We conclude that the difference in branch misses is too small to explain the superiority of the dual-pivot algorithm.Comment: to be presented at ANALCO 201

How Good Is Multi-Pivot Quicksort?

Multi-Pivot Quicksort refers to variants of classical quicksort where in the partitioning step $k$ pivots are used to split the input into $k + 1$ segments. For many years, multi-pivot quicksort was regarded as impractical, but in 2009 a 2-pivot approach by Yaroslavskiy, Bentley, and Bloch was chosen as the standard sorting algorithm in Sun's Java 7. In 2014 at ALENEX, Kushagra et al. introduced an even faster algorithm that uses three pivots. This paper studies what possible advantages multi-pivot quicksort might offer in general. The contributions are as follows: Natural comparison-optimal algorithms for multi-pivot quicksort are devised and analyzed. The analysis shows that the benefits of using multiple pivots with respect to the average comparison count are marginal and these strategies are inferior to simpler strategies such as the well known median-of-$k$ approach. A substantial part of the partitioning cost is caused by rearranging elements. A rigorous analysis of an algorithm for rearranging elements in the partitioning step is carried out, observing mainly how often array cells are accessed during partitioning. The algorithm behaves best if 3 to 5 pivots are used. Experiments show that this translates into good cache behavior and is closest to predicting observed running times of multi-pivot quicksort algorithms. Finally, it is studied how choosing pivots from a sample affects sorting cost. The study is theoretical in the sense that although the findings motivate design recommendations for multipivot quicksort algorithms that lead to running time improvements over known algorithms in an experimental setting, these improvements are small.Comment: Submitted to a journal, v2: Fixed statement of Gibb's inequality, v3: Revised version, especially improving on the experiments in Section

Dual-Pivot Quicksort: Optimality, Analysis and Zeros of Associated Lattice Paths

We present an average case analysis of a variant of dual-pivot quicksort. We show that the used algorithmic partitioning strategy is optimal, i.e., it minimizes the expected number of key comparisons. For the analysis, we calculate the expected number of comparisons exactly as well as asymptotically, in particular, we provide exact expressions for the linear, logarithmic, and constant terms. An essential step is the analysis of zeros of lattice paths in a certain probability model. Along the way a combinatorial identity is proven.Comment: This article supersedes arXiv:1602.0403