Anonymous user
Talk:External sort: Difference between revisions
m
→Is this task meaningful?: added a comment pertaining to yesteryear.
(→Is this task meaningful?: new section) |
m (→Is this task meaningful?: added a comment pertaining to yesteryear.) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 10:
But a worse problem, for this site, is that it's not likely that approaches to this task will be very comparable across languages. And that's because this task seems to be more about the operating system and hardware than it is about the language. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 04:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
:I did once sort a list of a billion 64-bit integers by sorting the chunks and then merge-sort/combining the chunks. I would agree it's a pretty rare situation and it is probably a poor fit for this site's format. --[[User:TimSC|TimSC]] ([[User talk:TimSC|talk]]) 05:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
:: There are many times where it may <u>not</u> be a good idea to let the ''sort'' process use all available real storage, especially when there may be many other critical programs running; and letting the ''sort'' thrash real storage (in a paging sense) would be detrimental to the system (and all other running programs) as a whole. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 06:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
::: Valid. I've experienced a bit too much of this lately. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 17:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
:::: Also, there was a time (long, long ago, far and away) when the DOS '''SORT''' program ('''SORT.EXE''') couldn't handle more than 64K of data. Not records, but data. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 11:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
| |||