Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #14927
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. |
| Date | 2012-05-29 16:08 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <balas7lf5g3qkmruqvgrneba63mb8deh11@4ax.com> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <pg4as7lvhhlsinnmhncvrne8vflek6agb7@4ax.com> <5f02c9ad-a414-41dd-8ac9-723d7a8651e5@googlegroups.com> <gpgas71pk57o0s68ie0qf1pgn9dg5hbkpb@4ax.com> <X%bxr.36808$6Y6.35155@newsfe19.iad> <pecxr.10088$br3.3802@newsfe10.iad> |
On Tue, 29 May 2012 15:39:16 -0700, Daniel Pitts
<newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> 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.
So about 100 bytes per word.
>Extrapolating that data to an extreme 2 million words, that would be
>less than 200MB in memory.
Or about 100 MB for my SWAG of one million words.
>My gut feeling beats your gut feeling, and my science proves it true. If
It sure does. Lew's figures (up to 10 MB) were considerably
lower, and that is what I was objecting to. They seemed too low.
>you are going to reply with a counter argument, please provide a
>reproducible experiment to prove your argument. Otherwise, this
>conversation is over.
Actually, I started with a question, namely
Including all affixes?
and I have been trying to get a reasonable answer to it. I knew that
your word counts were low compared to others that I have seen and
wanted to know a realistic memory use figure for the *whole* English
language. You have provided a sufficiently good approximation. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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