Tune up sort #63
Tune up sort #63
Conversation
|
Earlier: Sort a Vector without any args 0.190000 0.000000 0.190000 ( 0.187377)
Sort vector in descending order with custom <=> operator 0.200000 0.000000 0.200000 ( 0.204298)Now: Sort a Vector without any args 0.070000 0.010000 0.080000 ( 0.074862)
Sort vector in descending order with custom <=> operator 0.120000 0.000000 0.120000 ( 0.123979) |
|
why aren't tests passing? |
|
Funny fail for Ruby 2.0 and 2.1 expected:
#<Daru::Vector:46315380 @name = nil @size = 6 >
nil
2 nil
4 nil
5 2
1 4
0 22
3 111
got:
#<Daru::Vector:46316220 @name = nil @size = 6 >
nil
4 nil
2 nil
5 2
1 4
0 22
3 111 |
|
LOL it's not sorting the nils appropriately. How about this fix: remove the nil elements, then sort the Array with |
|
@v0dro Are you talking about fixing this particular test or implementing this idea in |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| index_vector = @index.to_a.zip(@data) | ||
| index_vector = index_vector.sort &block2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There seems no need to declare block2 as a separate variable. Simply pass { |a, b| block.call(a[1], b[1]) } to #sort.
|
Hmmm alright, just change the test. If the result is slightly different for different ruby versions don't forget to put the relevant comments in the code. |
|
Another option might be to sort on the index as a secondary sort key. That should make it consistent over different Ruby versions. Not sure about any performance impacts. |
|
@lokeshh could you try that out? Different indexes on different versions could prove to be problematic for certain use cases. |
|
Done. There's some negligible performance difference (increase of like 0.02 seconds). |
Set index as secondary key Improve performance Peformance Improvement
|
I am sorry, I just realized now that I forgot to place |
|
Create a new PR. |
|
Make sure you mention in the commit message that it's an amendment for this one. |
In reference to #39