• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Alundra

QuickSort algorithm

9 posts in this topic

Hi,

QuickSort is a sort algorithm who is used a lot.

I use a callback to compare both data :

Int32 (*Compare) ( const T&, const T& )

The complete function is :

QuickSort( const std::size_t First, const std::size_t Last, Int32 (*Compare) ( const T&, const T& ) )
{
  // Check for valid parameters.
  if( ( First >= Last ) || ( m_nData <= 1 ) )
    return;
  
  // Initialize position.
  std::size_t t = First;
  std::size_t p = First;
  std::size_t q = Last;
  
  // Partition.
  while( true )
  {
    while( Compare( m_Data[ p ], m_Data[ t ] ) > 0 )
      ++p;
    
    while( Compare( m_Data[ q ], m_Data[ t ] ) < 0 )
      --q;
    
    if( p > q )
      break;
    
    if( p < q )
    {
      const T Temp = m_Data[ p ];
      m_Data[ p ] = m_Data[ q ];
      m_Data[ q ] = Temp;
      
      if( p == t )
        t = q;
      
      if( q == t )
        t = p;
    }
    
    ++p;
    --q;
  }
  
  // Recursion.
  QuickSort( First, q, Compare );
  QuickSort( p, Last, Compare );
}

An exemple of compare callback is :

Int32 ArrayCompare( const UInt32& a, const UInt32& b )
{
  return a < b ? 1 : a > b ? -1 : 0;
}

Using this callback the array is ascending.

 

I have two questions :

- Is it possible to have better performances ? How ?

- Is it possible to have a compare callback who works by boolean ? How ?

  the compare callback by boolean should be :

bool (*Compare) ( const T&, const T& )

 

Thanks

Edited by Alundra
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Is it possible to have better performances ? How ?

Here are some of the ways I can think of:
1. improve your algorithm
2. pass in better data
3. turn on compiler optimizations

- Is it possible to have a compare callback who works by boolean ? How ?

uhhhh...
return a > b;
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Is it possible to have better performances ? How ?

In addition to Hodgman's implemtation changes:
1) Choose a random pivot element, rather than the first. This greatly reduces the probability of performance leaning in the O(n^2) direction for poorly distributed (semi-sorted to fully sorted) input data. You may want to also compute the median of the first, second and middle elements, or the median of a random subset (trade off between better medians, and more computation to get them).
2) Drop to a simpler sort when the data gets small enough. E.g., insertion sort (at approx. 8-16 elements) in order to reduce overhead. A less conservative switch (which IIRC std::sort does), is a switch to a heap sort after either a certain memory footprint size is reached or stack depth is reached. This is because this approach has a bounded stack depth, and HS becomes more efficient (due to it not being inhibited by it's cache unfriendly memory access patterns on larger sets) for smaller data sets.
3) If you are using primitive types, use a SIMD sorting network when the data set for a particular recursion is small enough.
4) Separate your sorting keys from your data for cache and swap efficiency.
5) Sort multi-threaded.
6) Sort distributed.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Is it possible to have better performances ? How ?

 

Many sorting libraries will use different sorting algorithms depending on the data they encounter.

 

Quicksort has a high overhead compared to a few other sort routines.  Also any time you get a bad pivot value you will move toward the worst case scenario of quicksort.  You chose the first value, so sorting an already-sorted list means you will see the worst case O(n^2) performance.  For any pivot selection heuristic someone can construct a worse case data set.

 

So the answer is to change your algorithm.   For a small number of items, insertion sort is generally fastest.  If the number is small enough, sort with that algorithm instead.  Quicksort has a really bad worst case scenario.  If multiple bad pivots are detected, switch over to the heapsort algorithm instead.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One concern I have here is that either:
a) You have a buffer overrun on this line
while( Compare( m_Data[ q ], m_Data[ t ] ) < 0 )
because q starts off equal to Last, or
b) You are using a different range scheme from the standard library. The end() method of the standard C++ library returns an iterator that is one-past the end of the container.

You might want to take a look at how your Quicksort varies from some of the dozens of sorting algorithm on my site. I've got introsort on there too. Link below.
Median-of-three is one improvement often used too. Edited by iMalc
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quicksort has a high overhead compared to a few other sort routines.  Also any time you get a bad pivot value you will move toward the worst case scenario of quicksort.  You chose the first value, so sorting an already-sorted list means you will see the worst case O(n^2) performance.  For any pivot selection heuristic someone can construct a worse case data set.

It would be less confusing to say "higher" overhead. In the grand scheme of things it's low to average overhead. Certainly a well-tuned implementation should still switch to a simpler algo for very small ranges.

 

With a reasonable pivot selection, quicksort is astronomically unlikely to behave significantly worse on real data than the expected O(n lg n) average. If the heuristic uses randomness, you can't even construct a data set to defeat it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been told timsort is really smart. I don't know how it compares however, everything std::sort implements is fine for me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been told timsort is really smart. I don't know how it compares however, everything std::sort implements is fine for me.

Yeah it probably is. The code for timsort is also huge and complicated, and it requires O(n) extra space. For his learning I wouldn't recommend going near it.

Introsort (a variation on quicksort) can be modified to produce the same best, worst, and average cases as timsort, but without the high memory usage, and probably a lower constant overhead too.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0