# Merging incomparable linearizations

**URL:** <https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/merging-incomparable-linearizations/209>\
**Category:** Implementation\
**Tags:** wg-cluster-mempool, mempool\
**Created:** [November 19, 2023, 4:12am UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/merging-incomparable-linearizations/209 "2023-11-19T04:12:15Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 45

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sipa](https://delvingbitcoin.org/user_avatar/delvingbitcoin.org/sipa/32/1100_2.png) [@sipa](https://delvingbitcoin.org/u/sipa)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2023, 4:33pm UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/merging-incomparable-linearizations/209/45 "2023-12-05T16:33:19Z")

</div>

Ok, with that counterexample in place I’m now again leaning the other direction: that the right approach is using the simplest algorithm that works.

My impression is that the non-commutativity and non-associativity of merging are effectively randomly stumbled upon through accidentally having/putting transactions in the right order. And these accidents can’t be prevented, and moreover trying more subsets will inevitably mean there is a small chance of finding something better still. However, that doesn’t mean it’s worth spending time on even if it’s a small cost. That time could be better spent on directly trying more things in the linearization algorithm.

---

_[View the full topic](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/merging-incomparable-linearizations/209)._