http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=693183


in reply to Predefined Sort

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what you want your sort criteria to be?

Near as I can tell you either want to sort in some type of reverse numeric order perhaps ignoring certain values OR you want to sort all ports in a list based on an order that you predefine.

For sorting a list based on predefined order where your predefined order is stored in an array @predefined:

foreach $element (@dports) {
   $count_hash{$element}++;
}
foreach $key (@predefined) {
  print "$key\n" x $count_hash{$key} if $count_hash{$key};
}

[download]
For sorting in numeric reverse order:
      my @sorted = sort {$b <=> $a} @dports;

[download]

If you are filtering out certain groups we'd have to stack this command with some type of grep.

Hope this helps,
Kris

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Predefined Sort
by kyle (Abbot) on Jun 20, 2008 at 16:40 UTC

    For sorting in reverse order, this is easier to understand and executes just as quickly: 

    my @sorted = reverse sort {$a <=> $b} @dports

    [download]

    When you swap $a and $b, there's a much better chance that someone reading through later won't notice that (particularly if the expression gets bigger and more complicated). Sticking reverse in is obvious.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

      Just as quickly? Looks like (surprisingly, to me at least) ~9-10% faster on average. 

      use Benchmark qw( timethese cmpthese );
use List::Util qw( shuffle );

for my $max (qw( 100 200 500 1000 2000 5000 )) {
    print "results for $max elems\n";

    my @big_list = shuffle 1 .. $max;

    cmpthese(
        -1,
        {   plain_sort => sub {
                my @local = sort { $b <=> $a } @big_list;
            },
            reversed => sub {
                my @local = reverse sort { $a <=> $b } @big_list;
            },
        }
    );

    print "\n";
}

exit 0;

__END__
results for 100 elems
              Rate plain_sort   reversed
plain_sort 46849/s         --        -8%
reversed   50717/s         8%         --

results for 200 elems
              Rate plain_sort   reversed
plain_sort 20676/s         --       -12%
reversed   23424/s        13%         --

results for 500 elems
             Rate plain_sort   reversed
plain_sort 7657/s         --        -9%
reversed   8374/s         9%         --

results for 1000 elems
             Rate plain_sort   reversed
plain_sort 3490/s         --        -8%
reversed   3794/s         9%         --

results for 2000 elems
             Rate plain_sort   reversed
plain_sort 1599/s         --        -9%
reversed   1756/s        10%         --

results for 5000 elems
            Rate plain_sort   reversed
plain_sort 553/s         --       -10%
reversed   613/s        11%         --

      [download]

      This space reserved for the update when someone points out my obvious benchmark fau pas . . . :)

      The cake is a lie.
      The cake is a lie.
      The cake is a lie.

[reply]
[d/l]

        I usually think of the margin of error for Benchmark as about 10%. Any difference smaller than that is likely to be noise. This might also be a case where you move the code from place to place in the file and it changes speed (see No More Meaningless Benchmarks!).

        Or maybe it's faster to say {$a<=>$b} rather than {$b<=>$a} for some reason. If I run your benchmark, changing only reverse sort to sort (so the 'reversed' case actually sorts forward), the results look about the same—{$a<=>$b} wins.

        In any case, I'll probably keep thinking of them as "the same speed", benchmarks be damned.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
      Good point. I like reverse sort {$a <=> $b} @unsorted for readability/maintenance.
      I think I'd probably use it, but is it really true that it executes just as quickly?
      Doesn't reverse have to re-evaluate the list given to it before executing?
      This would mean are evaluating the contents of the unsorted list twice: once to perform an ascending sort and again to perform a reverse.

      I do a lot of large batch database processing, and I'm fond of anything which is more efficient. If I had to execute the sort a few million times in a loop or give it an extremely large list such as all rows in my database, I could see the single sort approach being more efficient. Please let me know if I'm missing some, but in the meantime I'm off to use Benchmark to try this out.
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom