Re: Small improvement to compactify_tuples

2017-11-07 17:15 GMT+03:00 Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>:
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Юрий Соколов <funny.falcon@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > 2017-11-07 1:14 GMT+03:00 Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> I haven't seen this trick used in postgres, nor do I know whether it
> >> would be well received, so this is more like throwing an idea to see
> >> if it sticks...
> >>
> >> But a way to do this without macros is to have an includable
> >> "template" algorithm that simply doesn't define the comparison
> >> function/type, it rather assumes it:
> >>
> >> qsort_template.h
> >>
> >> #define QSORT_NAME qsort_ ## QSORT_SUFFIX
> >>
> >> static void QSORT_NAME(ELEM_TYPE arr, size_t num_elems)
> >> {
> >>     ... if (ELEM_LESS(arr[a], arr[b]))
> >>     ...
> >> }
> >>
> >> #undef QSORT_NAME
> >>
> >> Then, in "offset_qsort.h":
> >>
> >> #define QSORT_SUFFIX offset
> >> #define ELEM_TYPE offset
> >> #define ELEM_LESS(a,b) ((a) < (b))
> >>
> >> #include "qsort_template.h"
> >>
> >> #undef QSORT_SUFFIX
> >> #undef ELEM_TYPE
> >> #undef ELEM_LESS
> >>
> >> Now, I realize this may have its cons, but it does simplify
> >> maintainance of type-specific or parameterized variants of
> >> performance-critical functions.
> >>
> >> > I can do specialized qsort for this case. But it will be larger
bunch of
> >> > code, than
> >> > shell sort.
> >> >
> >> >> And I'd recommend doing that when there is a need, and I don't think
> >> >> this patch really needs it, since bucket sort handles most cases
> >> >> anyway.
> >> >
> >> > And it still needs insertion sort for buckets.
> >> > I can agree to get rid of shell sort. But insertion sort is
necessary.
> >>
> >> I didn't suggest getting rid of insertion sort. But the trick above is
> >> equally applicable to insertion sort.
> >
> > This trick is used in simplehash.h . I agree, it could be useful for
qsort.
> > This will not make qsort inlineable, but will reduce overhead much.
> >
> > This trick is too heavy-weight for insertion sort alone, though. Without
> > shellsort, insertion sort could be expressed in 14 line macros ( 8 lines
> > without curly braces). But if insertion sort will be defined together
with
> > qsort (because qsort still needs it), then it is justifiable.
>
> What do you mean by heavy-weight?


I mean, I've already made reusable sort implementation with macros
that is called like a function (with type parameter). If we are talking
only about insertion sort, then such macros looks much prettier than
including file.

But qsort is better implemented with included template-header.

BTW, there is example of defining many functions with call to template
macro instead of including template header:
https://github.com/attractivechaos/klib/blob/master/khash.h
But it looks ugly.

>
> Aside from requiring all that include magic, if you place specialized
> sort functions in a reusable header, using it is as simple as
> including the type-specific header (or declaring the type macros and
> including the template), and using them as regular functions. There's
> no runtime overhead involved, especially if you declare the comparison
> function as a macro or a static inline function. The sort itself can
> be declared static inline as well, and the compiler will decide
> whether it's worth inlining.

Ok, if no one will complain against another one qsort implementation,
I will add template header for qsort. Since qsort needs insertion sort,
it will be in a same file.
Do you approve of this?

With regards,
Sokolov Yura