github-drama VS piposort

TIL there is something called github-drama https://github.com/github-drama/github-drama

Hang on, you can't just quote MB/s numbers for an O(n log(n)) sort. What length were these tests run at?

The code size might not end up quite as good, but a branchless merge sort is a contender for a fast and lightweight merge. Just published, tiny-sort-rs[0] cites 632 bytes and looks like ~350MB/s at 1e4 elements on Zen 3. In my tests, my own pisort[1] benches a little over twice as fast as LongSort, but it uses sorting networks as the base case so it's like 5KB. It's roughly based on piposort[2] which has more complicated recursion but a simpler base case.

400 MB/s seems a bit slow for a radix sort on that hardware: I'm hitting those numbers on my i5-6200U, which has less than half the clock rate, with my own radix sort. Recommend checking ska_sort_copy from [3] as it has about the same performance.

[0] https://github.com/Voultapher/tiny-sort-rs

[1] https://github.com/mlochbaum/SingeliSort/blob/master/src/mer...

[2] https://github.com/scandum/piposort

[3] https://github.com/skarupke/ska_sort

Quadsort's author here.

This is the first time I've heard quadsort being called esoteric. It isn't much more complex than Timsort. It is however challenging to port ~1000 lines of code that can be tedious to debug. If you make one simple error/typo you could be stuck for hours in debugging hell.

Hence I recently published piposort, which is ~150 lines and pretty basic, while still offering excellent performance. Not as good as quadsort, but it could make for a stepping stone in a porting effort.

https://github.com/scandum/piposort