Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:80451
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.217.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABBJUpcxizh-SMQNOYX4Ejr6sOnoGw-78Nz28Db4JKWwNd9XCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABBJUpcxizh-SMQNOYX4Ejr6sOnoGw-78Nz28Db4JKWwNd9XCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:59:41 +0800
Message-ID: <CABBJUpfWmJGDvmKASKnukQEfDSP7L6UaHO10UoRQ3VRbvPwJvA@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, 
	Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: Faster zend sorting implementation
From: laruence@php.net (Xinchen Hui)

Hey:

    I made a PR here: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/999 for reviewing

    in benchmark this can brings more than 30% performance gain in
array_sort etc functions.

    tests fails are related to non-stable vs stable sorting difference.

    anyway, I feel it's better to ask you to do a final review, what
do you think?

    is there any objections to merge this?

thanks

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Xinchen Hui <laruence@php.net> wrote:
> Hey:
>
>      I was working on zend_qsort improvement. but I got a problem need
> to be disscussed with you fist..
>
>      as we know,  previously zend_qsort is not a stable sorting algo.
>
>      my draft patch (which already get 0.1% IRs reduce in wordpress)
> is kindof a stable sorting algo, you can find it here
> (https://github.com/laruence/php-src/compare/zend_sort)
>
>      so, there is a bc break, like for :
>
>      $array = array("o",  "O");
>      sort($array, SORT_STRING|SORT_FLAG_CASE);
>
>      var_dump($array);
>
>      previously implementation does the swap:
>
> array(2) {
>   [0]=>
>   string(1) "O"
>   [1]=>
>   string(1) "o"
> }
>
>      but new implementation doesn't not:
>
> array(2) {
>   [0]=>
>   string(1) "o"
>   [1]=>
>   string(1) "O"
> }
>
>     do you think such BC break is acceptable? or I still need a RFC? :<
>
> thanks
> --
> Xinchen Hui
> @Laruence
> http://www.laruence.com/



-- 
Xinchen Hui
@Laruence
http://www.laruence.com/