Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #14916
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. |
| Date | 2012-05-29 14:44 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <jmgas7tt9fqdmi2agn7uci7bgm0ofh8nul@4ax.com> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <jq1kpt$1ee$1@news.albasani.net> <7ss9s7tu1a8v9qbkc3qnhfg8rhck3ov4bi@4ax.com> <Gb7xr.31449$TC4.15127@newsfe14.iad> <pg4as7lvhhlsinnmhncvrne8vflek6agb7@4ax.com> <Mt8xr.31457$TC4.3795@newsfe14.iad> |
On Tue, 29 May 2012 11:22:35 -0700, Daniel Pitts
<newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> wrote:
>On 5/29/12 11:17 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 May 2012 09:55:02 -0700, Daniel Pitts
>> <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> 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.
>>
>>> 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.
>Moving the goalpost again are we?
No. Someone claimed that the amount of memory needed was low and
that modern systems have many times that amount. Sure, they do, but
they also typically run more than one app. Assuming that your app can
use all of memory is not very friendly.
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