There are times that you want a sorted version of a sequence, but for some reason you don't want to modify it. Maybe the elements in the sequence can't be moved/copied, e.g. the sequence is const, or they're just really expensive to move around. An example of this might be a sequence of records from a database.
That's where indirect sorting comes in. In a "normal" sort, the elements of the sequence to be sorted are shuffled in place. In indirect sorting, the elements are unchanged, but the sort algorithm returns a "permutation" of the elements that, when applied, will put the elements in the sequence in a sorted order.
If the element type is sufficiently expensive to swap, then 10,000 swaps of size_t + 1000 swaps of the element_type could be cheaper than 10,000 swaps of the element_type.
Or maybe you don't need the elements to actually be sorted - you just want to traverse them in a sorted order:
Sorting the first one is easy, because each set of fields (`key`, `value1`, `value2`) are part of the same struct. But with indirect sorting, the second one is easy to sort as well - just sort the keys, then apply the permutation to the keys and the values:
```
auto perm = indirect_sort(std::begin(structOfArrays.key), std::end(structOfArrays.key));
The function `indirect_sort` returns a `vector<size_t>` containing the permutation necessary to put the input sequence into a sorted order. One version uses `std::less` to do the comparisons; the other lets the caller pass predicate to do the comparisons.
Both of the variants of `indirect_sort` run in ['O(N lg N)] time; they are not more (or less) efficient than `std::sort`. There is an extra layer of indirection on each comparison, but all of the swaps are done on values of type `size_t`