Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #14910

Re: Patricia trie vs binary search.

Show all headers | View raw

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> Daniel Pitts wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >Are you arguing that a modern system can't handle that number of words? 
> 
>      No.  I simply stating that the real size of the problem is much
> bigger.

With no numbers that differ from Daniel's to back up your claim.

You called my numbers "made up", but it turned out they were 
*larger* than the real numbers.

You cite "a quarter of a million" words. Daniel counted roughly 
*150%* of that in his word base.

My numbers were generous. Yours are not even significantly different, 
and in fact are smaller than his. The numbers do show there is not 
much problem, yet somehow you claim with no logic or reasoning or 
different data that they do show a problem.

Clearly you are mistaken.

Daniel showed evidence from experimentation. His numbers jibe with 
yours. Without compression, his data occupy roughly 5 MiB of memory.

Show the problem or withdraw the claim.

>> A modern desktop has more than enough memory to easily handle a quarter 
>> *billion* words, which is a 100 times greater than your guessed upper limit.
>>
>> And that's *without* compression.
> 
>      Sure.  If that is all that it does.  My main (and older) desktop
> box has 1.5 GB.  I have trouble with not enough memory at times.
> Adding another app might break its back.

Again, how much damage will < 5 MiB of data do to that system?

How about 50 MiB? That's *ten times* the number of words you might need to handle. 
Without any compression.

You haven't shown a problem. You just chant, "The sky is falling!"

-- 
Lew

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Patricia trie vs binary search. markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-24 16:07 -0700
  Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-24 23:39 +0000
    Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-24 17:56 -0700
      Password quality (Was: Patricia trie vs binary search.) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-05-25 09:41 -0700
        Re: Password quality (Was: Patricia trie vs binary search.) markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-25 12:17 -0700
  Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-05-26 17:30 -0700
    Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-26 18:17 -0700
    Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-27 18:44 -0700
      Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-05-27 22:00 -0700
        Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-28 08:20 -0700
          Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-28 14:38 -0700
        Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-28 09:20 -0700
          Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-05-28 21:54 -0700
            Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-29 09:14 -0700
              Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-05-29 09:55 -0700
                Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-29 11:17 -0700
                Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-05-29 11:22 -0700
                Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-29 14:44 -0700
                Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-05-29 14:03 -0700
                Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-29 14:49 -0700
                Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-05-29 15:23 -0700
                Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-05-29 15:39 -0700
                Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-29 16:08 -0700
                Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-05-29 18:25 -0700
            Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-05-29 09:16 -0700
              Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-05-29 13:37 -0400
                Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-05-29 10:49 -0700
                Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-05-29 13:58 -0400
                Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-05-29 14:20 -0400
                Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-05-29 11:21 -0700
                Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-05-29 14:29 -0400
                Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-05-29 15:00 -0400
  Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-05-29 09:24 -0400

csiph-web