Re: No merge sort?

"Ron Peacetree" <rjpeace@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%cqka.13403$ey1.1154620@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> <cbbrowne@cbbrowne.com> wrote in message
> news:20030407202001.1EC3C58E0D@cbbrowne.com...
> > It is highly likely that it will typically take more
> > computational effort to figure out that one of the 4 sorts
provided
> > /any/ improvement than any computational effort they would save.
> >
> > That's a /very/ common problem.  There's also a fair chance, seen
in
> > practice, that the action of collecting additional statistics to
> improve
> > query optimization will cost more than the savings provided by the
> > optimizations.
> >
> "Back in the Day" I heard similar arguments when discussing whether
> there should be support for hashing [O(n)], interpolation search
TYPO ALERT:  hashing is, of course, O(1)