One problem with making datastructure in Perl that are a little bit more advanced than searching for exact queries, is that it's hard to parameterize the compare function. Suppose you want to create a search tree. What kind of keys are you going to store? Numbers? Strings? But to compare them, you need different operators. And when dealing with data structures, you'll do lots of comparisons.

I know of three solutions to solve this problem:

Below is a benchmark that compares the first and third options, for heapsort. It shows the eval option to be a winner.

Abigail

#!/usr/bin/perl use strict; use warnings; use Benchmark; my @heap; my $M = @ARGV ? shift : 1000; sub heapify; sub heapify { my ($idx, $cmp) = splice @_ => 0, 2; my $max = $idx; for my $try (2 * $idx + 1, 2 * $idx + 2) { $max = $try if $try < @heap && $cmp -> ($heap [$try], $heap [$ +max]); } return if $max == $idx; @heap [$idx, $max] = @heap [$max, $idx]; heapify $max, $cmp; } sub extract { return unless @heap; my $cmp = shift; my $min = $heap [0]; my $tmp = pop @heap; if (@heap) { $heap [0] = $tmp; heapify 0, $cmp; } return $min; } sub heapsort_cmp (&@) { (my ($cmp), @heap) = @_; for (my $i = int (@heap / 2); $i --;) { heapify $i => $cmp; } my @result; push @result => extract $cmp while @heap; @result; } my %cache; sub heapsort_eval ($@) { (my ($cmp), @heap) = @_; unless ($cache {$cmp}) { $cache {$cmp} = 1 + keys %cache; my $sub_heapify = "heapify_$cache{$cmp}"; my $sub_extract = "extract_$cache{$cmp}"; eval <<" --"; sub $sub_heapify; sub $sub_heapify { my (\$idx) = shift; my \$max = \$idx; for my \$try (2 * \$idx + 1, 2 * \$idx + 2) { \$max = \$try if \$try < \@heap && \$heap [\$try] $cmp \$heap [\$max]; } return if \$max == \$idx; \@heap [\$idx, \$max] = \@heap [\$max, \$idx]; $sub_heapify \$max; } sub $sub_extract { return unless \@heap; my \$min = \$heap [0]; my \$tmp = pop \@heap; if (\@heap) { \$heap [0] = \$tmp; $sub_heapify 0; } return \$min; } -- if ($@) {die "eval failed: $@\n"} } no strict 'refs'; my $sub_heapify = "heapify_$cache{$cmp}"; my $sub_extract = "extract_$cache{$cmp}"; for (my $i = int (@heap / 2); $i --;) { &$sub_heapify ($i); } my @result; push @result => &$sub_extract ($cmp) while @heap; @result; } our @data = 1 .. $M; for (my $i = @data; $i --;) { my $r = rand @data; @data [$r, $i] = @data [$i, $r]; } timethese -10 => { cmp => 'heapsort_cmp {$_ [0] < $_ [1]} @::data', eval => 'heapsort_eval "<", @::data' }; __END__ Benchmark: running cmp, eval for at least 10 CPU seconds... cmp: 11 wallclock secs (10.20 usr + 0.01 sys = 10.21 CPU) @ 3.23/ +s (n=33) eval: 11 wallclock secs (10.19 usr + 0.00 sys = 10.19 CPU) @ 4.61/ +s (n=47)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Datastructures and compare functions
by thor (Priest) on Apr 08, 2003 at 12:42 UTC
    Is this the same Abigail that always says that you should run a benchmark for different values to see who the true winner is? No flame, just saying for saying...

    thor

      Oh, but I did. I just didn't include a whole set of results in the posts. On my machine, the 'eval' method starts winning with 3 values in the set. The bigger the set, the larger the "win" of the 'eval'.

      Abigail

Re: Datastructures and compare functions
by RMGir (Prior) on Apr 08, 2003 at 18:47 UTC
    Interesting. But you said:

    What kind of keys are you going to store? Numbers? Strings? But to compare them, you need different operators. And when dealing with data structures, you'll do lots of comparisons.

    Another alternative is to store numeric values so cmp always works, 0 padding numbers if necessary. How would that compare (no pun intended) for performance?

    It feels like this is a generalization of the type of problem that the GRT and ST sorting approaches solve.
    --
    Mike