The 65% Blind Cut is a guillotine (an absurd one, by the way). Because no matter what's happening in the data, the search stops. If the key was in the 66%, you always lose it. The exact same "argument" applies to whatever Prefix-related search. Because, no matter what's happening in the data, the search stops. So, the prefix% cutoff, is, by your own definition, a Blind Cut guideline, which, by your own words, is of course, an absurd one. By the way. Unless of course, we start adding the "proximity bias" and other non-sense, in which case, pardon me: you are right! Considering that in the prefix method, the search window is elastic. If a block has no prefixes, you scan it 100%. If it has one at the beginning, you jump to 5%, for example. This variability is what eliminates the systematic blind spot you propose, and a probabilistic failure is always better than a design failure. I don't cut the block because I'm tired or because the clock says so; I cut it because the data tells me that the block has already yielded its probable result. You fail due to design arrogance; I fail, if at all, due to statistical chance, but you don't seem to see that.
The 65% Blind Cut is a guillotine (an absurd one, by the way). Because no matter what's happening in the data, the search stops. If the key was in the 66%, you always lose it. The exact same "argument" applies to whatever Prefix-related search. Because, no matter what's happening in the data, the search stops. So, the prefix% cutoff, is, by your own definition, a Blind Cut guideline, which, by your own words, is of course, an absurd one. By the way. Unless of course, we start adding the "proximity bias" and other non-sense, in which case, pardon me: you are right! Considering that in the prefix method, the search window is elastic. If a block has no prefixes, you scan it 100%. If it has one at the beginning, you jump to 5%, for example. This variability is what eliminates the systematic blind spot you propose, and a probabilistic failure is always better than a design failure. I don't cut the block because I'm tired or because the clock says so; I cut it because the data tells me that the block has already yielded its probable result. You fail due to design arrogance; I fail, if at all, due to statistical chance, but you don't seem to see that.

The 65% Blind Cut is a guillotine (an absurd one, by the way). Because no matter what's happening in the data, the search stops. If the key was in the 66%, you always lose it. The exact same "argument" applies to whatever Prefix-related search. Because, no matter what's happening in the data, the search stops. So, the prefix% cutoff, is, by your own definition, a Blind Cut guideline, which, by your own words, is of course, an absurd one. By the way. Unless of course, we start adding the "proximity bias" and other non-sense, in which case, pardon me: you are right! Considering that in the prefix method, the search window is elastic. If a block has no prefixes, you scan it 100%. If it has one at the beginning, you jump to 5%, for example. This variability is what eliminates the systematic blind spot you propose, and a probabilistic failure is always better than a design failure. I don't cut the block because I'm tired or because the clock says so; I cut it because the data tells me that the block has already yielded its probable result. You fail due to design arrogance; I fail, if at all, due to statistical chance, but you don't seem to see that.

The 65% Blind Cut is a guillotine (an absurd one, by the way). Because no matter what's happening in the data, the search stops. If the key was in the 66%, you always lose it. The exact same "argument" applies to whatever Prefix-related search. Because, no matter what's happening in the data, the search stops. So, the prefix% cutoff, is, by your own definition, a Blind Cut guideline, which, by your own words, is of course, an absurd one. By the way. Unless of course, we start adding the "proximity bias" and other non-sense, in which case, pardon me: you are right! Considering that in the prefix method, the search window is elastic. If a block has no prefixes, you scan it 100%. If it has one at the beginning, you jump to 5%, for example. This variability is what eliminates the systematic blind spot you propose, and a probabilistic failure is always better than a design failure. I don't cut the block because I'm tired or because the clock says so; I cut it because the data tells me that the block has already yielded its probable result. You fail due to design arrogance; I fail, if at all, due to statistical chance, but you don't seem to see that.