This clicked for me in a way I didn't expect.

I've been thinking about trade-offs as "pick two of three" in the abstract, but the bookshelf example made it concrete. The insight that matters is: if you know your query patterns, you can optimize differently.

As a PM, I keep trying to build systems that work for "every case." But this article reminded me that's the wrong goal. The hash table works because it accepts the space-time trade-off. The heap works because it embraces disorder for non-priority items.

Sometimes the best system isn't the most elegant one—it's the one that matches how you'll actually use it.

Good reminder to stop over-optimizing for flexibility I'll never need.

Thanks for sharing.

You're a PM and this basic-level watered down article barely discussing anything "clicked for you in a way" you didn't expect? Of course the best system is desinged based on requirements, how can a PM not know this before being a PM?