Indeed!
And the number of choices that leaves you with is rather tiny.
Worse (or better), from throwing cases at the code, I bet it is possible to prove that all such orderings are optimal so that the one that sort gives you is optimal.
I think it might not be hard to prove and $a <= $b <= $c implies $a <= $c (assuming non-negative cost and selectivity between 0 and 1). And that should be enough.
- tye
In reply to Re^6: Evolving a faster filter? (optimal!)
by tye
in thread Evolving a faster filter?
by Ovid
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |