tivrfoa

> > To me, this is easier to read, as I visually process it as `thing(thing + thing + thing)` instead of `thing(thing(thing) + thing + thing(thing))`. > I think...

> A bit slower now: > Thank you @gunnarmorling ! I made some changes. Could you please run it again?

Hi @gunnarmorling The new code will be slower, but you can merge it this way, no problem. If you could just run the code on master for the **10k** before,...

> Hey @tivrfoa! > > Congrats again on being in the Top 20 of the One Billion Row Challenge! > > To celebrate this amazing achievement, I would like to...

It fails here too: correct is green. It seems some problem with `;` 

> You might want to try this one out, @gunnarmorling :) Does your code work with the 10k dataset? You can create it with `./create_measurements3.sh 1000000000` I tried but it's...

> Ah, there is an aggregation bug found by 10K dataset, nice. Fixed in new commit. I checked that implementation works reasonably well with both 431 and 10K datasets: >...

> > Ah, there is an aggregation bug found by 10K dataset, nice. Fixed in new commit. I checked that implementation works reasonably well with both 431 and 10K datasets:...

> > > Ah, there is an aggregation bug found by 10K dataset, nice. Fixed in new commit. I checked that implementation works reasonably well with both 431 and 10K...

> ... Thanks for testing! My pleasure! =) I still need to study your solution, but I guess you're assuming no collisions with your double hashing, that's why it's faster...