On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 07:36:42AM -0400, Mouse wrote: > > Well, I'm not the one (putatively) doing the work. But my answers to > that are: >
Me neither. > (1) Small sorts are not the issue, IMO. Even a speedup as great as > halving the time taken is not enough to worry about when it's on a par > with the cost of starting sort(1) at all. > This was not why I suggested it, it was more the case where someone tries to sort a 50GiB file on a 16GiB machine causing it to slow to a crawl as it attempts to deal with the memory pressure. It may all be moot if the time to perform the sort algorithm far outweighs the i/o time as has been noted by others. -- Brett Lymn -- Sent from my NetBSD device. "We are were wolves", "You mean werewolves?", "No we were wolves, now we are something else entirely", "Oh"