This example shows that there can be large differences for one strategy and almost none for others. Using the strategy NONE, all orderings seem to perform equally well, the maximal/total number of cosets defined ranging from 143/143 to 163/163 (115%). For P-G the maximal/total number of cosets defined ranges from 127/139 for kbo-b to 276/287 (217%/194%) for ll-BbAa. Remarkably, the strategy P-G together with the ordering kbo-b performs best while together with the ordering ll-BbAa it performs worst compared to all other combinations computed.

Compared to the first example, here we have no strategy performing better than the others for all orderings or one ordering being better than the others for all strategies. The best orderings with respect to the strategies are kbo-A, kbo-a, and ll-BbAa for NONE, kbo-B for P-ALL, kbo-b for P-G, kbo-b for P-R, ll-BbAa for I-ALL, syl-r-abAB for I-R, and syl-l-abAB for I-R-P. The best strategy with respect to the orderings are NONE for kbo-A, P-ALL for kbo-B, NONE for kbo-a, P-G for kbo-b, I-ALL for ll-BbAa, I-R-P for syl-l-abAB, and I-R for syl-r-abAB.