RE: fix for inefficient merges in sort.c

2005-02-14 Thread Lemley James - jlemle
Hi Paul, thanks for the good words! That's an elegant solution - starting probe at 1 instead of in the middle, to get the case where the key we want is already in the first file. I like it. I had set up a test on my machine to try lots of different scenarios with the original sort.c and my mo

Re: fix for inefficient merges in sort.c

2005-02-14 Thread Paul Eggert
Lemley James - jlemle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've coded a patch to sort.c from coreutils 5.3.0 for your careful > consideration (and my use ;) to perform a binary search in the merge pass, > only if the key was not found in the first merge temp file. Thanks for that idea. How about the fo

RE: fix for inefficient merges in sort.c

2005-02-10 Thread Lemley James - jlemle
Somewhat embarrassed by this, but that last sort.c patch I sent has been de-uglified some. Try this one instead. This patch is restructured slightly from the last one and performs even better in my merge tests, both on random key files and dupe key files. Sorry for sending that before I was

fix for inefficient merges in sort.c

2005-02-10 Thread Lemley James - jlemle
Hi coreutils hackers, I see this topic has come up on the list before (searching for NMERGE in the archives), but in coreutils 5.3.0 sort.c, temporary files are still merged in a linear-search fashion. Admittedly I am new to this list and haven't read every note, but I didn't find a reason fo