4 ms·
djbsort uses a sorting network, not a quicksort. It is also designed to be in constant time, which is not the case with the linked blog post. So the restriction
by TontonNestor 4y ago
djbsort uses a sorting network, not a quicksort.
It is also designed to be in constant time, which is not the case with the linked blog post.
So the restrictions are different.
This is not my field, so I can't judge the relevance of this, but the author cites the state of the art.
It just seems that djbsort is not the state of the art and therefore does not need to be cited.
I still don't understand the hype around Bernstein, he is quite relevant in cryptography/cryptography implementations but not everything he does is gold.
- janwas 4y ago:) FWIW we also use a constant-time sorting network as the base case of the Quicksort recursion, that's a widely used optimization.
- dundarious 4y agoFor 32bits, djb has done light testing, indicating djbsort would be a better base case. > So far I haven't been able to verify these vqsort speed claims. On the contrary, it seems that, for 32-bit data types on AVX2, vqsort would be faster if its base-case code were replaced by a call to the 2018 djbsort code. Similarly, vqsort should reuse vxsort-cpp for AVX-512. https://twitter.com/hashbreaker/status/1533314687726538753 https://twitter.com/hashbreaker/status/1533314687726538753