The bound on string sorting is typically written as O(n log n + D), where D is the sum of distinguishing prefixes, ie input length minus some fluff. Since D >= n log n we already have linearity on input length.
Are you saying that you can sort strings in O(n log n + D) using a conventional sorting algorithm such as merge sort? If so, I don't understand why D would be an additive factor implying that each string is only involved in a constant number of comparisons.
(I wasn't, by the way, only considering strings when discussing variable sized keys -- the beauty of discrimination is that we essentially reduce all sorting problems to string sorting.)
When people say "conventional" sorting algorithms, they're usually talking about sorting algorithms based around pairwise comparison functions.
I note on slide 14 of this presentation, it looks like this is sort of the discriminator for selecting a better partitioning scheme. So it looks to me like this actually leverages a similar principle?
As we've seen in this thread and others, there are some other ways to measure and/or process that have different characteristics. Surely all of these deserve attention! So, thanks very much for sharing this.
Sorry, I was being imprecise. By conventional I meant comparison-based sorting functions that are polymorphic in the element type and thus not allowed to examine individual bytes.
Multikey Quicksort indeed looks like a special case of discrimination, exploiting some of the same principles.
(I wasn't, by the way, only considering strings when discussing variable sized keys -- the beauty of discrimination is that we essentially reduce all sorting problems to string sorting.)