Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Pivot Sampling in Dual-Pivot Quicksort

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1403.6602 v2 pith:VWZ67DIU submitted 2014-03-26 cs.DS math.PR

classification cs.DSmath.PR
keywords quicksortcomparisonsjavaalgorithmasymmetriesbytecodeclassicdual-pivot
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

The new dual-pivot Quicksort by Vladimir Yaroslavskiy - used in Oracle's Java runtime library since version 7 - features intriguing asymmetries in its behavior. They were shown to cause a basic variant of this algorithm to use less comparisons than classic single-pivot Quicksort implementations. In this paper, we extend the analysis to the case where the two pivots are chosen as fixed order statistics of a random sample and give the precise leading term of the average number of comparisons, swaps and executed Java Bytecode instructions. It turns out that - unlike for classic Quicksort, where it is optimal to choose the pivot as median of the sample - the asymmetries in Yaroslavskiy's algorithm render pivots with a systematic skew more efficient than the symmetric choice. Moreover, the optimal skew heavily depends on the employed cost measure; most strikingly, abstract costs like the number of swaps and comparisons yield a very different result than counting Java Bytecode instructions, which can be assumed most closely related to actual running time.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Top-Down Mergesort with Sorted Check Has Mergecost $\le(\mathcal H+3)n$

    cs.DS 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Top-down Mergesort with a sorted check before each merge has merge cost M ≤ (H+3)n for any input, where H is the run-length entropy.

Pith tools