Related
Given n integer id's, I wish to link all possible sets of up to k id's to a constant value. What I'm looking for is a way to translate sets (e.g. {1, 5}, {1, 3, 5} and {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}) to unique values.
Guarantees:
n < 100 and k < 10 (again: set sizes will range in [1, k]).
The order of id's doesn't matter: {1, 5} == {5, 1}.
All combinations are possible, but some may be excluded.
All sets and values are constant and made only once. No deletes or inserts, no value updates.
Once generated, the only operations taking place will be look-ups.
Look-ups will be frequent and one-directional (given set, look up value).
There is no need to sort (or otherwise organize) the values.
Additionally, it would be nice (but not obligatory) if "neighboring" sets (drop one id, add one id, swap one id, etc) are easy to reach, as well as "all sets that include at least this set".
Any ideas?
Enumerate using the product of primes.
a -> 2
b -> 3
c -> 5
d -> 7
et cetera
Now hash(ab) := 6, and hash (abc) := 30
And a nice side effect is that, if "ab" is a subset of "abc", then:
hash(abc) % hash(ab) == 0
and
hash(abc) / hash(ab) == hash(c)
The bad news: You might run into overflow, the 100th prime will probably be around 1000, and 64 bits cannot accomodate 1000**10. This will not affect the functioning as a hash function; only the subset thingy will fail to work. the same method applied to anagrams
The other option is Zobrist-hashing. It is equivalent to the the primes method, but instead of primes you use a fixed set of (random) numbers, and instead of multiplying you use XOR.
For a fixed small (it needs << ~70 bits) set like yours, it might be possible to tune the zobrist tables to totally avoid collisions (yielding a perfect hash).
And the final (and simplest) way is to use a (100bit) bitmap, and treat that as a hashvalue (maybe after modulo table size)
And a totally unrelated method is to just build a decision tree on the bits of the bitmap. (the tree would have a maximal depth of k) a related kD tree on bit values
May be not the best solution, but you can do the following:
Sort the set from Lowest to highest with a simple IntegerComparator
Add each item of the set to a String
so if you have {2,5,9,4} first Step->{2,4,5,9}; second->"2459"
This way you will get a unique String from a unique set. If you really need to map them to an integer value, you can hash the string after that.
A second way I can think of is to store them in a java Set and simply map it against a HashMap with set as keys
Calculate a 'diff' from each set {1, 6, 87, 89} = {1,5,81,2,0,0,...}
{1,2,3,4} = { 1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0... };
Then binary encode each number with a variable length encoding and concatenate the bits.
It's hard to compare the sets (except for the first few equal bits), but because there can't be many large intervals in a set, all possible values just might fit into 64 bits. (slack of 16 bits at least...)
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Fast Algorithm to Quickly Find the Range a Number Belongs to in a Set of Ranges?
Given a list of range of numbers that are non-overlapping and sorted (rangeList), and a number, write an efficient algorithm to find first whether this number exists in (some range in) rangeList and if it does exist, return the correct range.
For example rangeList = [(-1, 200), (300, 2000), (2011, 2300)]
Query 1: 1000 -> (True, (300, 2000) ) since 1000 lies between 300 and 2000.
Query 2: 250 -> (False, (None, None) ) since no 250 does not exist in any range in the list.
The best algorithm I have come up with is log N using binary search. This feels like a very common problem especially for Longitude/Latitude based searches. Any ideas to make this better than log N?
I'm not sure this will accomplish what you want, but it's a shot. It would involve an O(n) preprocessing step, and in return would offer a chance at O(1) runtime for any given query balanced against space complexity (via the parameter c). If your rangeList changes frequently, this will probably not be helpful.
Preprocessing steps:
Find the "total range" of the list of ranges (lowest acceptable value and highest, though there will be gaps in between). O(1)
Select a concentration parameter c (integer) for how many points you'd like to evaluate in that range. O(1)
Create a mapping function that maps integers [1, c] to the total range found in step 1, and can also do the inverse (this is no more complicated than a Celsius-Farenheit conversion). also O(1)
Using the mapping function, determine the points in the total range that correspond to [1, c]. Scan through the list of ranges, evaluating these points as you go, storing the answers ( (True, (300, 2000)), etc.) in an array of length c (let's call the array "Evaluated"). O(n + c)
Upon receiving a query:
Use the mapping function to convert the query number in the "total range" -> [1, c] direction. If the converted number falls outside the range [1, c], return (False, None, None). O(1)
Take the ceiling and floor of the converted number, which will give you two integers a and b. Compare Evaluated[a] and Evaluated[b]. If they contain the same answer, return it (if your converted number was already an integer, return Evaluated[converted number] directly). O(1)
If Evaluated[a] and Evaluated[b] give different answers, you have to do a binary search. But you can at least start the search at halfway between a and b, mapped back into "total range".
I have a collection of objects, each of which has a weight and a value. I want to pick the pair of objects with the highest total value subject to the restriction that their combined weight does not exceed some threshold. Additionally, I am given two arrays, one containing the objects sorted by weight and one containing the objects sorted by value.
I know how to do it in O(n2) but how can I do it in O(n)?
This is a combinatorial optimization problem, and the fact the values are sorted means you can easily try a branch and bound approach.
I think that I have a solution that works in O(n log n) time and O(n) extra space. This isn't quite the O(n) solution you wanted, but it's still better than the naive quadratic solution.
The intuition behind the algorithm is that we want to be able to efficiently determine, for any amount of weight, the maximum value we can get with a single item that uses at most that much weight. If we can do this, we have a simple algorithm for solving the problem: iterate across the array of elements sorted by value. For each element, see how much additional value we could get by pairing a single element with it (using the values we precomputed), then find which of these pairs is maximum. If we can do the preprocessing in O(n log n) time and can answer each of the above queries in O(log n) time, then the total time for the second step will be O(n log n) and we have our answer.
An important observation we need to do the preprocessing step is as follows. Our goal is to build up a structure that can answer the question "which element with weight less than x has maximum value?" Let's think about how we might do this by adding one element at a time. If we have an element (value, weight) and the structure is empty, then we want to say that the maximum value we can get using weight at most "weight" is "value". This means that everything in the range [0, max_weight - weight) should be set to value. Otherwise, suppose that the structure isn't empty when we try adding in (value, weight). In that case, we want to say that any portion of the range [0, weight) whose value is less than value should be replaced by value.
The problem here is that when we do these insertions, there might be, on iteration k, O(k) different subranges that need to be updated, leading to an O(n2) algorithm. However, we can use a very clever trick to avoid this. Suppose that we insert all of the elements into this data structure in descending order of value. In that case, when we add in (value, weight), because we add the elements in descending order of value, each existing value in the data structure must be higher than our value. This means that if the range [0, weight) intersects any range at all, those ranges will automatically be higher than value and so we don't need to update them. If we combine this with the fact that each range we add always spans from zero to some value, the only portion of the new range that could ever be added to the data structure is the range [weight, x), where x is the highest weight stored in the data structure so far.
To summarize, assuming that we visit the (value, weight) pairs in descending order of value, we can update our data structure as follows:
If the structure is empty, record that the range [0, value) has value "value."
Otherwise, if the highest weight recorded in the structure is greater than weight, skip this element.
Otherwise, if the highest weight recorded so far is x, record that the range [weight, x) has value "value."
Notice that this means that we are always splitting ranges at the front of the list of ranges we have encountered so far. Because of this, we can think about storing the list of ranges as a simple array, where each array element tracks the upper endpoint of some range and the value assigned to that range. For example, we might track the ranges [0, 3), [3, 9), and [9, 12) as the array
3, 9, 12
If we then needed to split the range [0, 3) into [0, 1) and [1, 3), we could do so by prepending 1 to he list:
1, 3, 9, 12
If we represent this array in reverse (actually storing the ranges from high to low instead of low to high), this step of creating the array runs in O(n) time because at each point we just do O(1) work to decide whether or not to add another element onto the end of the array.
Once we have the ranges stored like this, to determine which of the ranges a particular weight falls into, we can just use a binary search to find the largest element smaller than that weight. For example, to look up 6 in the above array we'd do a binary search to find 3.
Finally, once we have this data structure built up, we can just look at each of the objects one at a time. For each element, we see how much weight is left, use a binary search in the other structure to see what element it should be paired with to maximize the total value, and then find the maximum attainable value.
Let's trace through an example. Given maximum allowable weight 10 and the objects
Weight | Value
------+------
2 | 3
6 | 5
4 | 7
7 | 8
Let's see what the algorithm does. First, we need to build up our auxiliary structure for the ranges. We look at the objects in descending order of value, starting with the object of weight 7 and value 8. This means that if we ever have at least seven units of weight left, we can get 8 value. Our array now looks like this:
Weight: 7
Value: 8
Next, we look at the object of weight 4 and value 7. This means that with four or more units of weight left, we can get value 7:
Weight: 7 4
Value: 8 7
Repeating this for the next item (weight six, value five) does not change the array, since if the object has weight six, if we ever had six or more units of free space left, we would never choose this; we'd always take the seven-value item of weight four. We can tell this since there is already an object in the table whose range includes remaining weight four.
Finally, we look at the last item (value 3, weight 2). This means that if we ever have weight two or more free, we could get 3 units of value. The final array now looks like this:
Weight: 7 4 2
Value: 8 7 3
Finally, we just look at the objects in any order to see what the best option is. When looking at the object of weight 2 and value 3, since the maximum allowed weight is 10, we need tom see how much value we can get with at most 10 - 2 = 8 weight. A binary search over the array tells us that this value is 8, so one option would give us 11 weight. If we look at the object of weight 6 and value 5, a binary search tells us that with five remaining weight the best we can do would be to get 7 units of value, for a total of 12 value. Repeating this on the next two entries doesn't turn up anything new, so the optimum value found has value 12, which is indeed the correct answer.
Hope this helps!
Here is an O(n) time, O(1) space solution.
Let's call an object x better than an object y if and only if (x is no heavier than y) and (x is no less valuable) and (x is lighter or more valuable). Call an object x first-choice if no object is better than x. There exists an optimal solution consisting either of two first-choice objects, or a first-choice object x and an object y such that only x is better than y.
The main tool is to be able to iterate the first-choice objects from lightest to heaviest (= least valuable to most valuable) and from most valuable to least valuable (= heaviest to lightest). The iterator state is an index into the objects by weight (resp. value) and a max value (resp. min weight) so far.
Each of the following steps is O(n).
During a scan, whenever we encounter an object that is not first-choice, we know an object that's better than it. Scan once and consider these pairs of objects.
For each first-choice object from lightest to heaviest, determine the heaviest first-choice object that it can be paired with, and consider the pair. (All lighter objects are less valuable.) Since the latter object becomes lighter over time, each iteration of the loop is amortized O(1). (See also searching in a matrix whose rows and columns are sorted.)
Code for the unbelievers. Not heavily tested.
from collections import namedtuple
from operator import attrgetter
Item = namedtuple('Item', ('weight', 'value'))
sentinel = Item(float('inf'), float('-inf'))
def firstchoicefrombyweight(byweight):
bestsofar = sentinel
for x in byweight:
if x.value > bestsofar.value:
bestsofar = x
yield (x, bestsofar)
def firstchoicefrombyvalue(byvalue):
bestsofar = sentinel
for x in byvalue:
if x.weight < bestsofar.weight:
bestsofar = x
yield x
def optimize(items, maxweight):
byweight = sorted(items, key=attrgetter('weight'))
byvalue = sorted(items, key=attrgetter('value'), reverse=True)
maxvalue = float('-inf')
try:
i = firstchoicefrombyvalue(byvalue)
y = i.next()
for x, z in firstchoicefrombyweight(byweight):
if z is not x and x.weight + z.weight <= maxweight:
maxvalue = max(maxvalue, x.value + z.value)
while x.weight + y.weight > maxweight:
y = i.next()
if y is x:
break
maxvalue = max(maxvalue, x.value + y.value)
except StopIteration:
pass
return maxvalue
items = [Item(1, 1), Item(2, 2), Item(3, 5), Item(3, 7), Item(5, 8)]
for maxweight in xrange(3, 10):
print maxweight, optimize(items, maxweight)
This is similar to Knapsack problem. I will use naming from it (num - weight, val - value).
The essential part:
Start with a = 0 and b = n-1. Assuming 0 is the index of heaviest object and n-1 is the index of lightest object.
Increase a til objects a and b satisfy the limit.
Compare current solution with best solution.
Decrease b by one.
Go to 2.
Update:
It's the knapsack problem, except there is a limit of 2 items. You basically need to decide how much space you want for the first object and how much for the other. There is n significant ways to split available space, so the complexity is O(n). Picking the most valuable objects to fit in those spaces can be done without additional cost.
I'm writing a program where I'm having to test if one set of unique integers A belongs to another set of unique numbers B. However, this operation might be done several hundred times per second, so I'm looking for an efficient algorithm to do it.
For example, if A = [1 2 3] and B = [1 2 3 4], it is true, but if B = [1 2 4 5 6], it's false.
I'm not sure how efficient it is to just sort and compare, so I'm wondering if there are any more efficient algorithms.
One idea I came up with, was to give each number n their corresponding n'th prime: that is 1 = 2, 2 = 3, 3 = 5, 4 = 7 etc. Then I could calculate the product of A, and if that product is a factor of the similar product of B, we could say that A is a subset of similar B with certainty. For example, if A = [1 2 3], B = [1 2 3 4] the primes are [2 3 5] and [2 3 5 7] and the products 2*3*5=30 and 2*3*5*7=210. Since 210%30=0, A is a subset of B. I'm expecting the largest integer to be couple of million at most, so I think it's doable.
Are there any more efficient algorithms?
The asymptotically fastest approach would be to just put each set in a hash table and query each element, which is O(N) time. You cannot do better (since it will take that much time to read the data).
Most set datastructures already support expected and/or amortized O(1) query time. Some languages even support this operation. For example in python, you could just do
A < B
Of course the picture changes drastically depending on what you mean by "this operation is repeated". If you have the ability to do precalculations on the data as you add it to the set (which presumably you have the ability to do so), this will allow you to subsume the minimal O(N) time into other operations such as constructing the set. But we can't advise without knowing much more.
Assuming you had full control of the set datastructure, your approach to keep a running product (whenever you add an element, you do a single O(1) multiplication) is a very good idea IF there exists a divisibility test that is faster than O(N)... in fact your solution is really smart, because we can just do a single ALU division and hope we're within float tolerance. Do note however this will only allow you roughly a speedup factor of 20x max I think, since 21! > 2^64. There might be tricks to play with congruence-modulo-an-integer, but I can't think of any. I have a slight hunch though that there is no divisibility test that is faster than O(#primes), though I'd like to be proved wrong!
If you are doing this repeatedly on duplicates, you may benefit from caching depending on what exactly you are doing; give each set a unique ID (though since this makes updates hard, you may ironically wish to do something exactly like your scheme to make fingerprints, but mod max_int_size with detection-collision). To manage memory, you can pin extremely expensive set comparison (e.g. checking if a giant set is part of itself) into the cache, while otherwise using a most-recent policy if you run into memory issues. This nice thing about this is it synergizes with an element-by-element rejection test. That is, you will be throwing out sets quickly if they don't have many overlapping elements, but if they have many overlapping elements the calculations will take a long time, and if you repeat these calculations, caching could come in handy.
Let A and B be two sets, and you want to check if A is a subset of B. The first idea that pops into my mind is to sort both sets and then simply check if every element of A is contained in B, as following:
Let n_A and n_B be the cardinality of A and B, respectively. Let i_A = 1, i_B = 1. Then the following algorithm (that is O(n_A + n_B)) will solve the problem:
// A and B assumed to be sorted
i_A = 1;
i_B = 1;
n_A = size(A);
n_B = size(B);
while (i_A <= n_A) {
while (A[i_A] > B[i_B]) {
i_B++;
if (i_B > n_B) return false;
}
if (A[i_A] != B[i_B}) return false;
i_A++;
}
return true;
The same thing, but in a more functional, recursive way (some will find the previous easier to understand, others might find this one easier to understand):
// A and B assumed to be sorted
function subset(A, B)
n_A = size(A)
n_B = size(B)
function subset0(i_A, i_B)
if (i_A > n_A) true
else if (i_B > n_B) false
else
if (A[i_A] <= B[i_B]) return (A[i_A] == B[i_B]) && subset0(i_A + 1, i_B + 1);
else return subset0(i_A, i_B + 1);
subset0(1, 1)
In this last example, notice that subset0 is tail recursive, since if (A[i_A] == B[i_B]) is false then there will be no recursive call, otherwise, if (A[i_A] == B[i_B]) is true, than there's no need to keep this information, since the result of true && subset0(...) is exactly the same as subset0(...). So, any smart compiler will be able to transform this into a loop, avoiding stack overflows or any performance hits caused by function calls.
This will certainly work, but we might be able to optimize it a lot in the average case if you have and provide more information about your sets, such as the probability distribution of the values in the sets, if you somehow expect the answer to be biased (ie, it will more often be true, or more often be false), etc.
Also, have you already written any code to actually measure its performance? Or are you trying to pre-optimize?
You should start by writing the simplest and most straightforward solution that works, and measure its performance. If it's not already satisfactory, only then you should start trying to optimize it.
I'll present an O(m+n) time-per-test algorithm. But first, two notes regarding the problem statement:
Note 1 - Your edits say that set sizes may be a few thousand, and numbers may range up to a million or two.
In following, let m, n denote the sizes of sets A, B and let R denote the size of the largest numbers allowed in sets.
Note 2 - The multiplication method you proposed is quite inefficient. Although it uses O(m+n) multiplies, it is not an O(m+n) method because the product lengths are worse than O(m) and O(n), so it would take more than O(m^2 + n^2) time, which is worse than the O(m ln(m) + n ln(n)) time required for sorting-based methods, which in turn is worse than the O(m+n) time of the following method.
For the presentation below, I suppose that sets A, B can completely change between tests, which you say can occur several hundred times per second. If there are partial changes, and you know which p elements change in A from one test to next, and which q change in B, then the method can be revised to run in O(p+q) time per test.
Step 0. (Performed one time only, at outset.) Clear an array F, containing R bits or bytes, as you prefer.
Step 1. (Initial step of per-test code.) For i from 0 to n-1, set F[B[i]], where B[i] denotes the i'th element of set B. This is O(n).
Step 2. For i from 0 to m-1, { test F[A[i]]. If it is clear, report that A is not a subset of B, and go to step 4; else continue }. This is O(m).
Step 3. Report that A is a subset of B.
Step 4. (Clear used bits) For i from 0 to n-1, clear F[B[i]]. This is O(n).
The initial step (clearing array F) is O(R) but steps 1-4 amount to O(m+n) time.
Given the limit on the size of the integers, if the set of B sets is small and changes seldom, consider representing the B sets as bitsets (bit arrays indexed by integer set member). This doesn't require sorting, and the test for each element is very fast.
If the A members are sorted and tend to be clustered together, then get another speedup by testing all the element in one word of the bitset at a time.
Most sort algorithms rely on a pairwise-comparison the determines whether A < B, A = B or A > B.
I'm looking for algorithms (and for bonus points, code in Python) that take advantage of a pairwise-comparison function that can distinguish a lot less from a little less or a lot more from a little more. So perhaps instead of returning {-1, 0, 1} the comparison function returns {-2, -1, 0, 1, 2} or {-5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5} or even a real number on the interval (-1, 1).
For some applications (such as near sorting or approximate sorting) this would enable a reasonable sort to be determined with less comparisons.
The extra information can indeed be used to minimize the total number of comparisons. Calls to the super_comparison function can be used to make deductions equivalent to a great number of calls to a regular comparsion function. For example, a much-less-than b and c little-less-than b implies a < c < b.
The deductions cans be organized into bins or partitions which can each be sorted separately. Effectively, this is equivalent to QuickSort with n-way partition. Here's an implementation in Python:
from collections import defaultdict
from random import choice
def quicksort(seq, compare):
'Stable in-place sort using a 3-or-more-way comparison function'
# Make an n-way partition on a random pivot value
segments = defaultdict(list)
pivot = choice(seq)
for x in seq:
ranking = 0 if x is pivot else compare(x, pivot)
segments[ranking].append(x)
seq.clear()
# Recursively sort each segment and store it in the sequence
for ranking, segment in sorted(segments.items()):
if ranking and len(segment) > 1:
quicksort(segment, compare)
seq += segment
if __name__ == '__main__':
from random import randrange
from math import log10
def super_compare(a, b):
'Compare with extra logarithmic near/far information'
c = -1 if a < b else 1 if a > b else 0
return c * (int(log10(max(abs(a - b), 1.0))) + 1)
n = 10000
data = [randrange(4*n) for i in range(n)]
goal = sorted(data)
quicksort(data, super_compare)
print(data == goal)
By instrumenting this code with the trace module, it is possible to measure the performance gain. In the above code, a regular three-way compare uses 133,000 comparisons while a super comparison function reduces the number of calls to 85,000.
The code also makes it easy to experiment with a variety comparison functions. This will show that naïve n-way comparison functions do very little to help the sort. For example, if the comparison function returns +/-2 for differences greater than four and +/-1 for differences four or less, there is only a modest 5% reduction in the number of comparisons. The root cause is that the course grained partitions used in the beginning only have a handful of "near matches" and everything else falls in "far matches".
An improvement to the super comparison is to covers logarithmic ranges (i.e. +/-1 if within ten, +/-2 if within a hundred, +/- if within a thousand.
An ideal comparison function would be adaptive. For any given sequence size, the comparison function should strive to subdivide the sequence into partitions of roughly equal size. Information theory tells us that this will maximize the number of bits of information per comparison.
The adaptive approach makes good intuitive sense as well. People should first be partitioned into love vs like before making more refined distinctions such as love-a-lot vs love-a-little. Further partitioning passes should each make finer and finer distinctions.
You can use a modified quick sort. Let me explain on an example when you comparison function returns [-2, -1, 0, 1, 2]. Say, you have an array A to sort.
Create 5 empty arrays - Aminus2, Aminus1, A0, Aplus1, Aplus2.
Pick an arbitrary element of A, X.
For each element of the array, compare it with X.
Depending on the result, place the element in one of the Aminus2, Aminus1, A0, Aplus1, Aplus2 arrays.
Apply the same sort recursively to Aminus2, Aminus1, Aplus1, Aplus2 (note: you don't need to sort A0, as all he elements there are equal X).
Concatenate the arrays to get the final result: A = Aminus2 + Aminus1 + A0 + Aplus1 + Aplus2.
It seems like using raindog's modified quicksort would let you stream out results sooner and perhaps page into them faster.
Maybe those features are already available from a carefully-controlled qsort operation? I haven't thought much about it.
This also sounds kind of like radix sort except instead of looking at each digit (or other kind of bucket rule), you're making up buckets from the rich comparisons. I have a hard time thinking of a case where rich comparisons are available but digits (or something like them) aren't.
I can't think of any situation in which this would be really useful. Even if I could, I suspect the added CPU cycles needed to sort fuzzy values would be more than those "extra comparisons" you allude to. But I'll still offer a suggestion.
Consider this possibility (all strings use the 27 characters a-z and _):
11111111112
12345678901234567890
1/ now_is_the_time
2/ now_is_never
3/ now_we_have_to_go
4/ aaa
5/ ___
Obviously strings 1 and 2 are more similar that 1 and 3 and much more similar than 1 and 4.
One approach is to scale the difference value for each identical character position and use the first different character to set the last position.
Putting aside signs for the moment, comparing string 1 with 2, the differ in position 8 by 'n' - 't'. That's a difference of 6. In order to turn that into a single digit 1-9, we use the formula:
digit = ceiling(9 * abs(diff) / 27)
since the maximum difference is 26. The minimum difference of 1 becomes the digit 1. The maximum difference of 26 becomes the digit 9. Our difference of 6 becomes 3.
And because the difference is in position 8, out comparison function will return 3x10-8 (actually it will return the negative of that since string 1 comes after string 2.
Using a similar process for strings 1 and 4, the comparison function returns -5x10-1. The highest possible return (strings 4 and 5) has a difference in position 1 of '-' - 'a' (26) which generates the digit 9 and hence gives us 9x10-1.
Take these suggestions and use them as you see fit. I'd be interested in knowing how your fuzzy comparison code ends up working out.
Considering you are looking to order a number of items based on human comparison you might want to approach this problem like a sports tournament. You might allow each human vote to increase the score of the winner by 3 and decrease the looser by 3, +2 and -2, +1 and -1 or just 0 0 for a draw.
Then you just do a regular sort based on the scores.
Another alternative would be a single or double elimination tournament structure.
You can use two comparisons, to achieve this. Multiply the more important comparison by 2, and add them together.
Here is a example of what I mean in Perl.
It compares two array references by the first element, then by the second element.
use strict;
use warnings;
use 5.010;
my #array = (
[a => 2],
[b => 1],
[a => 1],
[c => 0]
);
say "$_->[0] => $_->[1]" for sort {
($a->[0] cmp $b->[0]) * 2 +
($a->[1] <=> $b->[1]);
} #array;
a => 1
a => 2
b => 1
c => 0
You could extend this to any number of comparisons very easily.
Perhaps there's a good reason to do this but I don't think it beats the alternatives for any given situation and certainly isn't good for general cases. The reason? Unless you know something about the domain of the input data and about the distribution of values you can't really improve over, say, quicksort. And if you do know those things, there are often ways that would be much more effective.
Anti-example: suppose your comparison returns a value of "huge difference" for numbers differing by more than 1000, and that the input is {0, 10000, 20000, 30000, ...}
Anti-example: same as above but with input {0, 10000, 10001, 10002, 20000, 20001, ...}
But, you say, I know my inputs don't look like that! Well, in that case tell us what your inputs really look like, in detail. Then someone might be able to really help.
For instance, once I needed to sort historical data. The data was kept sorted. When new data were added it was appended, then the list was run again. I did not have the information of where the new data was appended. I designed a hybrid sort for this situation that handily beat qsort and others by picking a sort that was quick on already sorted data and tweaking it to be fast (essentially switching to qsort) when it encountered unsorted data.
The only way you're going to improve over the general purpose sorts is to know your data. And if you want answers you're going to have to communicate that here very well.