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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #14929

Re: Patricia trie vs binary search.

Show all headers | View raw

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> Daniel Pitts wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>BTW, if I check the memory usage before loading words and after, the 
>>difference is ~ 42MB
>>
>>So, loading 481k words takes up about 42MB. This is in java, which has a 
>>fairly high overhead per string. And the implementation of my data 
>>structure is also fairly naive as well.

We've been talking apples and oranges. You refer here to the memory 
footprint if the entire word list were in memory as naive Strings. I've been 
talking about the footprint in storage (e.g., the SD card of a smartphone). 

So, Gene, you have been misinterpreting my point.

There is little reason to hold the dictionary in memory at all times if you 
are in a memory-constrained environment. If one does need to hold it
in memory, and one were worried about memory footprint, one would not 
hold it in a memory-intensive, naive structure, in RAM all at once.

Compression exceeding 90% is typical with text. Assuming 75% compression,
a very reasonable and safe estimate, the data would occupy about 10 MB, just 
as I said. That's if you keep it in memory in compressed form.

A disk-based solution would likely occupy only a few KB at a time.

Nice try to distort the issue into a scary monster, though.

-- 
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