On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:
>> > You don't want to change the behavior of the current patch for the
>> > second or subsequent run; that should remain a quicksort, pure and
>> > simple. Do I have that right?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> I'm not even sure this is necessary. The idea of missing out on
> producing a single sorted run sounds bad but in practice since we
> normally do the final merge on the fly there doesn't seem like there's
> really any difference between reading one tape or reading two or three
> tapes when outputing the final results. There will be the same amount
> of I/O happening and a 2-way or 3-way merge for most data types should
> be basically free.
I basically agree with you, but it seems possible to fix the
regression (generally misguided though those regressed cases are).
It's probably easiest to just fix it.
--
Peter Geoghegan