Anonymous user
Talk:External sort: Difference between revisions
m
→Is this task meaningful?: added a comment pertaining to yesteryear.
(→Is this task meaningful?: added some comments.) |
m (→Is this task meaningful?: added a comment pertaining to yesteryear.) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 13:
: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)
| |||