Tight bounds on the complexity of parallel sorting
IEEE Transactions on Computers
Introduction to parallel algorithms and architectures: array, trees, hypercubes
Introduction to parallel algorithms and architectures: array, trees, hypercubes
High-performance sorting on networks of workstations
SIGMOD '97 Proceedings of the 1997 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data
Searching for the sorting record: experiences in tuning NOW-Sort
SPDT '98 Proceedings of the SIGMETRICS symposium on Parallel and distributed tools
Columnsort lives! an efficient out-of-core sorting program
Proceedings of the thirteenth annual ACM symposium on Parallel algorithms and architectures
External memory algorithms and data structures: dealing with massive data
ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
MPI-The Complete Reference, Volume 1: The MPI Core
MPI-The Complete Reference, Volume 1: The MPI Core
Introduction to Algorithms
Getting More from Out-of-Core Columnsort
ALENEX '02 Revised Papers from the 4th International Workshop on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments
Algorithms and data structures for external memory
Foundations and Trends® in Theoretical Computer Science
Proceedings of the twenty-third annual ACM symposium on Parallelism in algorithms and architectures
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
We compare two algorithms for sorting out-of-core data on a distributed-memory cluster. One algorithm, Csort, is a 3-pass oblivious algorithm. The other, Dsort, makes two passes over the data and is based on the paradigm of distribution-based algorithms. In the context of out-of-core sorting, this study is the first comparison between the paradigms of distribution-based and oblivious algorithms. Dsort avoids two of the four steps of a typical distribution-based algorithm by making simplifying assumptions about the distribution of the input keys. Csort makes no assumptions about the keys. Despite the simplifying assumptions, the I/O and communication patterns of Dsort depend heavily on the exact sequence of input keys. Csort, on the other hand, takes advantage of predetermined I/O and communication patterns, governed entirely by the input size, in order to overlap computation, communication, and I/O . Experimental evidence shows that, even on inputs that followed Dsort’s simplifying assumptions, Csort fared well. The running time of Dsort showed great variation across five input cases, whereas Csort sorted all of them in approximately the same amount of time. In fact, Dsort ran significantly faster than Csort in just one out of the five input cases: the one that was the most unrealistically skewed in favor of Dsort. A more robust implementation of Dsort—one without the simplifying assumptions—would run even slower.