Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncementsWhite Papers
Discussion GroupsFirst AidDatabasesJavaBeansGUIJava 3DVirtual MachineCORBASecurityToolsGeneral
Java DirectoryOpen Source ProjectsSample Book ChaptersUser GroupsWeb Resources
Related Topics
Databases.NETMore Topics ...

Java Forum / General / September 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

A Sort Optimization Technique: decorate-sort-dedecorate

Thread view: 
xahlee@gmail.com - 27 Aug 2006 23:51 GMT
Last year, i've posted a tutorial and commentary about Python and
Perl's sort function. (http://xahlee.org/perl-python/sort_list.html)

In that article, i discussed a technique known among juvenile Perlers
as the Schwartzian Transform, which also manifests in Python as its
“key” optional parameter.

Here, i give a more detailed account on why and how of this construct.

----

Language and Sort Optimization: decorate-sort-dedecorate

There are many algorithms for sorting. Each language can chose which to
use. See wikipedia for a detailed list and explanation:
Sorting_algorithm↗ .

However, does not matter which algorithm is used, ultimately it will
need the order-deciding function on the items to be sorted. Suppose
your items are (a,b,c,d,...), and your order-deciding function is F.
Various algorithms will try to minimize the number of times F is
called, but nevertheless, F will be applied to a particular element in
the list multiple times. For example, F(a,b) may be called to see which
of “a” or “b” comes first. Then, later the algorithm might need
to call F(m,a), or F(a,z). The point here is that, F will be called
many times on arbitrary two items in your list, even if one of the
element has been compared to others before.

Now suppose, you are sorting some polygons in 3D space, or personal
records by the person's address's distance from a location, or sorting
matrixes by their eigen-values in some math application, or ordering
files by number of occurrences of some text in the file.

In general, when you define your decision function F(x,y), you will
need to extract some property from the elements to be sorted. For
example, when sorting points in space by a criterion of distance, one
will need to compute the distance for the point. When sorting personal
records from database by the person's location, the decision function
will need to retrieve the person's address from the database, then find
the coordinate of that address, that compute the distance from there to
a given coordinate. In sorting matrixes in math by eigen-values, the
order-decision will first compute the eigen-value of the matrix. A
common theme from all of the above is that they all need to do some
non-trivial computation on each element.

As we can see, the order-decision function F may need to do some
expensive computation on each element first, and this is almost always
the case when sorting elements other than simple numbers. Also, we know
that a sorting algorithm will need to call F(x,y) many times, even if
one of x or y has been compared to others before. So, this may result
high inefficiency. For example, you need to order people by their
location to your home. So when F(Mary,Jane) is called, Mary's address
is first retrieved from a database across a network, the coordinate of
her address is looked up in another database. Then the distance to your
home are computed using spherical geometry. The exact same thing is
done for Jane. But later on, it may call F(Mary,Chrissy),
F(Mary,Jonesy), F(Mary,Pansy) and so on, and the entire record
retrieval for Mary is repeated many times.

One solution, is to do the expensive extraction one time for each
element, then associate that with the corresponding elements. Suppose
this expensive extraction function is called gist(). So, you create a
new list ([Mary,gist(Mary)], [Jane,gist(Jane)], [John,gist(John)],
[Jenny,gist(Jenny)], ...) and sort this list instead, when done, remove
associated gist. This technique is sometimes called
decorate-sort-dedecorate.

In Perl programing, this decorate-sort-dedecorate technique is sillily
known as Schwartzian Transform as we have demonstrated previously. In
Python, they tried to incorporate this technique into the language, by
adding the “key” optional parameter, which is our gist() function.

----------
This post is archived at:
http://xahlee.org/perl-python/sort_list.html

I would be interested in comments about how Common Lisp, Scheme, and
Haskell deal with the decorate-sort-dedecorate technique. In
particular, does it manifest in the language itself? If not, how does
one usually do it in the code? (note: please reply to approprate groups
if it is of no general interest. Thanks) (am also interested on how
Perl6 or Python3000 does this, if there are major changes to their sort
function)

Thanks.

 Xah
 xah@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/
Tom Cole - 28 Aug 2006 01:06 GMT
Well you cross-posted this enough, including a Java group, and didn't
even ask about us... What a pity.

In Java, classes can implement the Comparable interface. This interface
contains only one method, a compareTo(Object o) method, and it is
defined to return a value < 0 if the Object is considered less than the
one being passed as an argument, it returns a value > 0 if considered
greater than, and 0 if they are considered equal.

The object implementing this interface can use any of the variables
available to it (AKA address, zip code, longitude, latitude, first
name, whatever) to return this -1, 0 or 1. This is slightly different
than what you mention as we don't have to "decorate" the object. These
are all variables that already exist in the Object, and if fact make it
what it is. So, of course, there is no need to un-decorate at the end.

There are several built-in objects and methods available to sort
Objects that are Comparable, even full Arrays of them.
Henry Law - 28 Aug 2006 08:58 GMT
> Well you cross-posted this enough, including a Java group, and didn't
> even ask about us... What a pity.

Tom, this guy's a persistently pestiferous troll in comp.lang.perl.misc;
I suggest you don't waste your breath.

I'm posting this just to the Java group he cross-splattered in.

Signature

Henry Law       <><     Manchester, England

Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch - 28 Aug 2006 09:50 GMT
> In Java, classes can implement the Comparable interface. This interface
> contains only one method, a compareTo(Object o) method, and it is
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> are all variables that already exist in the Object, and if fact make it
> what it is. So, of course, there is no need to un-decorate at the end.

Python has such a mechanism too, the special `__cmp__()` method
has basically the same signature.  The problem the decorate, sort,
un-decorate pattern solves is that this object specific compare operations
only use *one* criteria.

Let's say you have a `Person` object with name, surname, date of birth and
so on.  When you have a list of such objects and want to sort them by name
or by date of birth you can't use the `compareTo()` method for both.

Ciao,
    Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
Jim Gibson - 28 Aug 2006 19:50 GMT
> > In Java, classes can implement the Comparable interface. This interface
> > contains only one method, a compareTo(Object o) method, and it is
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> un-decorate pattern solves is that this object specific compare operations
> only use *one* criteria.

I can't believe I am getting drawn into a thread started by xahlee, but
here goes anyway:

The problem addressed by what is know in Perl as the 'Schwartzian
Transform' is that the compare operation can be an expensive one,
regardless of the whether the comparison uses multiple keys. Since in
comparison sorts, the compare operation will be executed N(logN) times,
it is more efficient to pre-compute a set of keys, one for each object
to be sorted. That need be done only N times. The sort can then use
these pre-computed keys to sort the objects. See, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwartzian_transform

Signature

Jim Gibson

Dr.Ruud - 28 Aug 2006 20:38 GMT
Jim Gibson schreef:

> The problem addressed by what is know in Perl as the 'Schwartzian
> Transform' is that the compare operation can be an expensive one,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> each object to be sorted. That need be done only N times. The sort
> can then use these pre-computed keys to sort the objects.

Basically it first builds, than sorts an index.

The pre-computed (multi-)keys can often be optimized, see Uri's
Sort::Maker http://search.cpan.org/search?query=Sort::Maker
for facilities.

Signature

Affijn, Ruud

"Gewoon is een tijger."

Joachim Durchholz - 29 Aug 2006 11:50 GMT
Jim Gibson schrieb:

> The problem addressed by what is know in Perl as the 'Schwartzian
> Transform' is that the compare operation can be an expensive one,
> regardless of the whether the comparison uses multiple keys. Since in
> comparison sorts, the compare operation will be executed N(logN) times,
> it is more efficient to pre-compute a set of keys, one for each object
> to be sorted. That need be done only N times.

Wikipedia says it's going from 2NlogN to N. If a sort is massively
dominated by the comparison, that could give a speedup of up to 100%
(approximately - dropping the logN factor is almost irrelevant, what
counts is losing that factor of 2).

Regards,
Jo
xhoster@gmail.com - 29 Aug 2006 15:38 GMT
> Jim Gibson schrieb:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> (approximately - dropping the logN factor is almost irrelevant, what
> counts is losing that factor of 2).

It seems to me that ln 1,000,000 is 13.8, and that 13.8 is quite a bit
greater than 2.

Cheers,

Xho

Signature

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service                        $9.95/Month 30GB

neoedmund - 31 Aug 2006 02:35 GMT
yeah, java also have 2 interface, Comparator and Comparable, which
equal to python's compareTo() and __cmp__()

> > In Java, classes can implement the Comparable interface. This interface
> > contains only one method, a compareTo(Object o) method, and it is
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Ciao,
>     Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
William James - 28 Aug 2006 09:28 GMT
> I would be interested in comments about how Common Lisp, Scheme, and
> Haskell deal with the decorate-sort-dedecorate technique.

%w(FORTRAN LISP COBOL).sort_by{|s| s.reverse}
   ==>["COBOL", "FORTRAN", "LISP"]

--
Common Lisp did kill Lisp.  Period. ...  It is to Lisp what
C++ is to C.  A monstrosity that totally ignores the basics
of language design, simplicity, and orthogonality to begin
with.  ---  Bernard Lang
Xah Lee - 08 Sep 2006 11:56 GMT
i just want to make it known that i think most if not all of the
replies in this thread are of not much technical value. They are either
wrong and or misleading, and the perl module mentioned about sorting or
the Java language aspect on sorting, as they are discussed or
represented, are rather stupid.

I may or may not write a detailed account later. If you have specific
questions, or want to know specific reasons of my claims, please don't
hesitate to email. (privately if you deem it proper)

 Xah
 xah@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/

> Last year, i've posted a tutorial and commentary about Python and
> Perl's sort function. (http://xahlee.org/perl-python/sort_list.html)
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>   xah@xahlee.org
> ∑ http://xahlee.org/


Free Magazines

Get these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...

Oracle MagazineNetwork ComputingComputer WorldBio-IT WorldeWeekInformation WeekInfosecurity
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.