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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #14872

Re: Patricia trie vs binary search.

Path csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From markspace <-@.>
Newsgroups comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject Re: Patricia trie vs binary search.
Date Mon, 28 May 2012 14:38:49 -0700
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Lines 16
Message-ID <jq0r9f$101$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References <jpmev4$63l$1@dont-email.me> <uAewr.45671$On2.38133@newsfe16.iad> <s0m5s7t5gt33plp5m6cn07g4ovehvedfb7@4ax.com> <ADDwr.2826$9Q6.1871@newsfe18.iad> <jq053r$hr7$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit
Injection-Date Mon, 28 May 2012 21:38:55 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="ayApTal7F+uyxlbK5HEKzA"; logging-data="1025"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18eXFDbROhuqGQRGKs3gxLYYUcASaxBR50="
User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
In-Reply-To <jq053r$hr7$1@dont-email.me>
Cancel-Lock sha1:148yw6IUoS4rFnHqXQddDhsH8zU=
Xref csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:14872

Show key headers only | View raw

On 5/28/2012 8:20 AM, markspace wrote:
> On 5/27/2012 10:00 PM, Daniel Pitts wrote:
>> the Moby
>> word-lists
>
>
> Moby word lists are neat, thanks for pointing that out.


While I'm thinking about it, here's a link I found from BYU with links 
to other corpus and word lists:

http://corpus.byu.edu/

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