

No, It's Not Always Quicker to Do Things in Memory - tosh
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/03/25/1430251/no-its-not-always-quicker-to-do-things-in-memory

======
dalke
This is not interesting. If you read the comments you'll see people
complaining that it compared an O(N^2) string append method to an O(N) disk
append method.

Plus, the link to the research PDF in the Slashdot article is now broken. It
should be [http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02678](http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02678)
"When In-Memory Computing is Slower than Heavy Disk Usage".

That page comments "This paper has been withdrawn by the authors for personal
reasons. No further revisions"

~~~
tosh
The I found the discussion/comments to be the interesting thing.

~~~
dalke
Since the paper was withdrawn and the link to the PDF is broken, you have no
way to verify that the comments are correct, nor any way to learn to identify
a poorly written paper. This removes almost everything which I might see as
'interesting.'

Putting that aside, it's a duplicate post. Two weeks previous was
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9265226](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9265226)
with exactly the same title. The comments at the ITWorld article then are
equally dismissive the paper, with essentially the same comments as /. The two
comments made then here at HN are all one needs to know about the paper.

This is not something that "good hackers would find interesting", which is the
first requirement of the submission guidelines at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
because it's impossible to be a good hacker without knowing this introductory
level material.

