### Re^2: sort an array with +ve & -ve numbers in it

by eric256 (Parson)
 on Apr 03, 2009 at 13:16 UTC ( #755264=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

Ummm...isn't a sort a bit easier and simpler?

```my @array = ( 99, 67, 0, -100, -38, 98);
my (\$min, \$max) = (sort @array)[0,-1];

___________
Eric Hodges

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: sort an array with +ve & -ve numbers in it
by philipbailey (Deacon) on Apr 03, 2009 at 14:38 UTC
Easier and simpler, but less efficient (O n log n, perhaps) than jwkrahn's approach (O n). Of course this won't matter for small data sets.
Easier and simpler, but less efficient

Woah! I would benchmark that before making such a statement. I expect you'll need a seriously huge list before the O(n log n) starts to lose to your straight O(n).

There's no debate that it will, but the problem is the 0(n) algorithm is using a comparatively large number of slow ops, where as the sort compiles down into a single op, and there you're running at C speed (simple {\$a <=> \$b} blocks are recognised and special-cased during the parse). This will drown out the extra cost for a long, long time (that is: for a long list of values). On my machine, the cross-over occurs between 100 000 and 1 000 000 elements (and I had to run the million element benchmark for 15 seconds in order to give it enough time to settle down)

```               Rate with_scan_1 with_sort_1
with_scan_1 35662/s          --        -53%
with_sort_1 76332/s        114%          --
Rate with_scan_2 with_sort_2
with_scan_2  6838/s          --        -40%
with_sort_2 11437/s         67%          --
Rate with_scan_3 with_sort_3
with_scan_3 759/s          --        -11%
with_sort_3 853/s         12%          --
Rate with_sort_4 with_scan_4
with_sort_4 62.6/s          --        -18%
with_scan_4 76.2/s         22%          --
Rate with_sort_5 with_scan_5
with_sort_5 3.38/s          --        -47%
with_scan_5 6.38/s         89%          --
s/iter with_sort_6 with_scan_6
with_sort_6   4.88          --        -66%
with_scan_6   1.65        196%          --

And since either choice is crazy fast enough for me, I'd throw my lot in with the more succinct version -- less chance of introducing semantic mistakes and off-by-one errors). For instance, I had to think for a little while about how you initialised \$min and \$max...

• another intruder with the mooring in the heart of the Perl

Re^3: sort an array with +ve & -ve numbers in it
by lostjimmy (Chaplain) on Apr 03, 2009 at 15:26 UTC

As already stated by ikegami, you really need to use the numerical sort: sort {\$a <=> \$b} @array

Try changing your data set to my @array = ( -10, 99, 67, 0, -100, -38, 98) and using that sort routine. This is probably the problem the OP is having. You're going to get -10 as the minimum.

Very true, corrected code:

```my @array = ( 99, 67, 0, -100, -38, 98);
my (\$min, \$max) = (sort {\$a <=> \$b} @array)[0,-1];

Update: Cut n paste error fixed, thanks plobsing and ikegami

___________
Eric Hodges

Typo alert: you have 2 sorts. The result is that you sort alphabetically after having sorted numerically.

Unfortunately, your test dataset doesn't show the problem. Try adding 100 to the data.

Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://755264]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others browsing the Monastery: (1)
As of 2023-03-24 19:47 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
Voting Booth?
Which type of climate do you prefer to live in?

Results (61 votes). Check out past polls.

Notices?