Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #14864
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. |
| Date | 2012-05-28 09:20 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <hr87s756sdaku47lh8sebnegsmskclu637@4ax.com> (permalink) |
| References | <jpmev4$63l$1@dont-email.me> <uAewr.45671$On2.38133@newsfe16.iad> <s0m5s7t5gt33plp5m6cn07g4ovehvedfb7@4ax.com> <ADDwr.2826$9Q6.1871@newsfe18.iad> |
On Sun, 27 May 2012 22:00:14 -0700, Daniel Pitts
<newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> wrote:
>On 5/27/12 6:44 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 17:30:17 -0700, Daniel Pitts
>> <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I tend to use a Deterministic Finite State Automata for this. You can
>>> load the entire English dictionary fairly easily with that scheme. Yes,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> you use a bit of memory, but unless you're doing this on an embedded
>>> device, its probably not enough memory to be concerned about.
>>
>> Including all affixes?
>I suppose it depends on the particular dictionary, but we're only
>talking a few hundred thousand entries, at least with the Moby
>word-lists as a base:
Considering how many affixes can be applied to some words, I find
that very questionable:
self:
*ish
*ishly
un*ish
un*ishly
*less
*lessly
un*less
un*lessly
position:
*s
*ed
*al
*ally
re*
re*s
re*ed
*less
mis*
*er
*ers
friend
*s
*ly
*liness
be*
be*ing
be*ed
be*er
be*ers
These are not particularly extreme examples.
[snip]
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