23 research outputs found
Why Is Dual-Pivot Quicksort Fast?
I discuss the new dual-pivot Quicksort that is nowadays used to sort arrays
of primitive types in Java. I sketch theoretical analyses of this algorithm
that offer a possible, and in my opinion plausible, explanation why (a)
dual-pivot Quicksort is faster than the previously used (classic) Quicksort and
(b) why this improvement was not already found much earlier.Comment: extended abstract for Theorietage 2015
(https://www.uni-trier.de/index.php?id=55089) (v2 fixes a small bug in the
pseudocode
Perspects in astrophysical databases
Astrophysics has become a domain extremely rich of scientific data. Data
mining tools are needed for information extraction from such large datasets.
This asks for an approach to data management emphasizing the efficiency and
simplicity of data access; efficiency is obtained using multidimensional access
methods and simplicity is achieved by properly handling metadata. Moreover,
clustering and classification techniques on large datasets pose additional
requirements in terms of computation and memory scalability and
interpretability of results. In this study we review some possible solutions
Why Is Dual-Pivot Quicksort Fast?
I discuss the new dual-pivot Quicksort that is nowadays used to sort arrays of primitive types in Java. I sketch theoretical analyses of this algorithm that offer a possible, and in my opinion plausible, explanation why (a) dual-pivot Quicksort is faster than the previously used (classic) Quicksort and (b) why this improvement was not already found much earlier
QuickHeapsort: Modifications and improved analysis
We present a new analysis for QuickHeapsort splitting it into the analysis of
the partition-phases and the analysis of the heap-phases. This enables us to
consider samples of non-constant size for the pivot selection and leads to
better theoretical bounds for the algorithm. Furthermore we introduce some
modifications of QuickHeapsort, both in-place and using n extra bits. We show
that on every input the expected number of comparisons is n lg n - 0.03n + o(n)
(in-place) respectively n lg n -0.997 n+ o (n). Both estimates improve the
previously known best results. (It is conjectured in Wegener93 that the
in-place algorithm Bottom-Up-Heapsort uses at most n lg n + 0.4 n on average
and for Weak-Heapsort which uses n extra-bits the average number of comparisons
is at most n lg n -0.42n in EdelkampS02.) Moreover, our non-in-place variant
can even compete with index based Heapsort variants (e.g. Rank-Heapsort in
WangW07) and Relaxed-Weak-Heapsort (n lg n -0.9 n+ o (n) comparisons in the
worst case) for which no O(n)-bound on the number of extra bits is known
QuickXsort: Efficient Sorting with n log n - 1.399n +o(n) Comparisons on Average
In this paper we generalize the idea of QuickHeapsort leading to the notion
of QuickXsort. Given some external sorting algorithm X, QuickXsort yields an
internal sorting algorithm if X satisfies certain natural conditions.
With QuickWeakHeapsort and QuickMergesort we present two examples for the
QuickXsort-construction. Both are efficient algorithms that incur approximately
n log n - 1.26n +o(n) comparisons on the average. A worst case of n log n +
O(n) comparisons can be achieved without significantly affecting the average
case.
Furthermore, we describe an implementation of MergeInsertion for small n.
Taking MergeInsertion as a base case for QuickMergesort, we establish a
worst-case efficient sorting algorithm calling for n log n - 1.3999n + o(n)
comparisons on average. QuickMergesort with constant size base cases shows the
best performance on practical inputs: when sorting integers it is slower by
only 15% to STL-Introsort