This seems like a fairly lazy article. It is not at all a like-for-like comparison, to compare merging two already sorted vectors with (naively) merging two ha

This seems like a fairly lazy article. It is not at all a like-for-like comparison, to compare merging two already sorted vectors with (naively) merging two hash collections. Yet there is no real elucidation of the meaningful take-aways, such as random walks in memory over a larger structure are slower than a linear walk over a more compact structure, or that if you have an already sorted collection and don't need to shuffle it, you probably shouldn't. Nor any attempt to normalise the results, by for instance constructing two sorted vectors from the unordered sets, and merging these; mentioning of course that this necessitates worse algorithmic complexity (but better constant factors). Nor even any discussion of the more efficient approaches for producing intersection/union if you cannot afford to do batch-wise construction of a sorted vector. Basically, if you did not already know this before you read the article, you probably are no better informed now.