It's like telling a child that having 2 ice creams is the same whether you give them 2 or take 2 away from the 4 they had. The final number is the same, but the operational reality is completely different. Your method 'removes' 35% of the equation's range, leaving you blind. My method 'distributes' the effort so that I never lose the opportunity for success. kTimesG, you're stuck looking at the final number on paper; I'm sticking with the method that truly has the flexibility to find the key no matter where it is along the way. If the order didn't matter and it was all blind luck, the random stop should have performed just as well as my heuristic. I think I've already made my point about search heuristics versus purist statistics clear. Let another user see for themselves and draw their own conclusions. I have things to do, money to try to earn, to waste time on this technical-purist-engineering cycle. edit: Regarding efficiency, the statistical significance indicates that it requires almost the same effort as your block-based method. Your cutoff at 65 is the same; you would need to query the target by key, while I would query the prefix. The target is only queried if the prefix is ​​found, and since the ratio is 1/N, a large block is used because the method is scalable, avoiding bottlenecks caused by small blocks. In other words, it only requires one more step: querying the target after finding a prefix, and this action is negligible. Happy new year.
It's like telling a child that having 2 ice creams is the same whether you give them 2 or take 2 away from the 4 they had. The final number is the same, but the operational reality is completely different. Your method 'removes' 35% of the equation's range, leaving you blind. My method 'distributes' the effort so that I never lose the opportunity for success. kTimesG, you're stuck looking at the final number on paper; I'm sticking with the method that truly has the flexibility to find the key no matter where it is along the way. If the order didn't matter and it was all blind luck, the random stop should have performed just as well as my heuristic. I think I've already made my point about search heuristics versus purist statistics clear. Let another user see for themselves and draw their own conclusions. I have things to do, money to try to earn, to waste time on this technical-purist-engineering cycle. edit: Regarding efficiency, the statistical significance indicates that it requires almost the same effort as your block-based method. Your cutoff at 65 is the same; you would need to query the target by key, while I would query the prefix. The target is only queried if the prefix is ​​found, and since the ratio is 1/N, a large block is used because the method is scalable, avoiding bottlenecks caused by small blocks. In other words, it only requires one more step: querying the target after finding a prefix, and this action is negligible. Happy new year.

It's like telling a child that having 2 ice creams is the same whether you give them 2 or take 2 away from the 4 they had. The final number is the same, but the operational reality is completely different. Your method 'removes' 35% of the equation's range, leaving you blind. My method 'distributes' the effort so that I never lose the opportunity for success. kTimesG, you're stuck looking at the final number on paper; I'm sticking with the method that truly has the flexibility to find the key no matter where it is along the way. If the order didn't matter and it was all blind luck, the random stop should have performed just as well as my heuristic. I think I've already made my point about search heuristics versus purist statistics clear. Let another user see for themselves and draw their own conclusions. I have things to do, money to try to earn, to waste time on this technical-purist-engineering cycle. edit: Regarding efficiency, the statistical significance indicates that it requires almost the same effort as your block-based method. Your cutoff at 65 is the same; you would need to query the target by key, while I would query the prefix. The target is only queried if the prefix is ​​found, and since the ratio is 1/N, a large block is used because the method is scalable, avoiding bottlenecks caused by small blocks. In other words, it only requires one more step: querying the target after finding a prefix, and this action is negligible. Happy new year.

It's like telling a child that having 2 ice creams is the same whether you give them 2 or take 2 away from the 4 they had. The final number is the same, but the operational reality is completely different. Your method 'removes' 35% of the equation's range, leaving you blind. My method 'distributes' the effort so that I never lose the opportunity for success. kTimesG, you're stuck looking at the final number on paper; I'm sticking with the method that truly has the flexibility to find the key no matter where it is along the way. If the order didn't matter and it was all blind luck, the random stop should have performed just as well as my heuristic. I think I've already made my point about search heuristics versus purist statistics clear. Let another user see for themselves and draw their own conclusions. I have things to do, money to try to earn, to waste time on this technical-purist-engineering cycle. edit: Regarding efficiency, the statistical significance indicates that it requires almost the same effort as your block-based method. Your cutoff at 65 is the same; you would need to query the target by key, while I would query the prefix. The target is only queried if the prefix is ​​found, and since the ratio is 1/N, a large block is used because the method is scalable, avoiding bottlenecks caused by small blocks. In other words, it only requires one more step: querying the target after finding a prefix, and this action is negligible. Happy new year.