<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>measurement on semikolan</title>
    <link>https://semikolan.me/tags/measurement/</link>
    <description>Recent content in measurement on semikolan</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2026 21:19:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://semikolan.me/tags/measurement/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>When Big-O Lies</title>
      <link>https://semikolan.me/blog/when-big-o-lies/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://semikolan.me/blog/when-big-o-lies/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;There&amp;rsquo;s a particular kind of confidence that comes from writing &lt;code&gt;O(n log n)&lt;/code&gt; in a design doc. It feels like a proof. And it is one — about a limit you will, in practice, never reach.&lt;sup id=&#34;fnref:1&#34;&gt;&lt;a href=&#34;#fn:1&#34; class=&#34;footnote-ref&#34; role=&#34;doc-noteref&#34;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; The trouble starts when we treat the asymptote as advice for the machine in front of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last week I replaced a &amp;ldquo;slow&amp;rdquo; quadratic scan with a &amp;ldquo;fast&amp;rdquo; sort-then-sweep. The theory was unimpeachable. The result was &lt;em&gt;slower&lt;/em&gt; — for every realistic input we actually saw.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
