Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #14895
| Path | csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Patricia trie vs binary search. |
| Date | Tue, 29 May 2012 11:17:01 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Lines | 22 |
| Message-ID | <pg4as7lvhhlsinnmhncvrne8vflek6agb7@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> <hr87s756sdaku47lh8sebnegsmskclu637@4ax.com> <jq1kpt$1ee$1@news.albasani.net> <7ss9s7tu1a8v9qbkc3qnhfg8rhck3ov4bi@4ax.com> <Gb7xr.31449$TC4.15127@newsfe14.iad> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 7bit |
| Injection-Info | mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="wKah3EH8kutwAOV6+9FiEQ"; logging-data="31932"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18DXSnj4uyQ2cLtC9DytijBXEYNmA2amCI=" |
| X-Newsreader | Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:bxGcTcGi9xLliODkAk9gVPYtgxo= |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:14895 |
Show key headers only | View raw
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.
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