Update README.md

bench/README.md

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ General remarks:
 * The C++ versions of `crumsort` and `quadsort` are competetive across the entire suite of tests — almost always best or second best. They generally perform slightly better than the C versions, and they perform much better when sorting strings.
 * `std::sort` and `std::stable_sort` (at least the Microsoft implementations tested in this benchmark) have generally okay performance. If sorting isn't a bottleneck, it's very reasonable to stick with the standard library sorts to avoid introducing a new dependency.
 * `qsort`, on the other hand is absolutely terrible. But this may be Microsoft specific, as C is very much a second class citizen in MSVC space.
-* `ska_sort` and `pdqsort` are pretty good across the board. They are a step ahead of `timsort`, which struggles with highly random data. They are much simpler algorithms than `crumsort`/`quadsort`, so they are good option for those who are looking to balance runtime performance with binary size and code complexity.
+* `ska_sort` and `pdqsort` are pretty good across the board. They are a step ahead of `timsort`, which struggles with some data patterns. They are much simpler algorithms than `crumsort`/`quadsort`, so they are good option for those who are looking to balance runtime performance with binary size and code complexity.
 * If you only need to sort numeric data, `rhsort` is lightening fast.
 
 ***