From 40bff24fc2e2da57f382e4f49a5ffb7c826bbcfb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Douglas Rumbaugh <dbr4@psu.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 17:29:40 -0400
Subject: Updates

---
 chapters/sigmod23/exp-parameter-space.tex | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

(limited to 'chapters/sigmod23/exp-parameter-space.tex')

diff --git a/chapters/sigmod23/exp-parameter-space.tex b/chapters/sigmod23/exp-parameter-space.tex
index d53c592..9583312 100644
--- a/chapters/sigmod23/exp-parameter-space.tex
+++ b/chapters/sigmod23/exp-parameter-space.tex
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ operations) reducing their effect on the overall throughput.
 
 The influence of scale factor on update performance is shown in
 Figure~\ref{fig:insert_sf}. The effect is different depending on the
-layout policy, with larger scale factors benefitting update performance
+layout policy, with larger scale factors benefiting update performance
 under tiering, and hurting it under leveling. The effect of the mutable
 buffer size on insertion, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:insert_mt}, is a little
 less clear, but does show a slight upward trend, with larger buffers
@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ effect on query performance. Thus, in this context, is would appear
 that the scale factor is primarily useful as an insertion performance
 tuning tool. The mutable buffer size, in Figure~\ref{fig:sample_mt},
 also generally has no clear effect. This is expected, because the buffer
-contains onyl a small number of records relative to the entire dataset,
+contains only a small number of records relative to the entire dataset,
 and so has a fairly low probability of being selected for drawing
 a sample from. Even when it is selected, rejection sampling is very
 inexpensive. The one exception to this trend is when using tombstones,
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

