From: Mark Davis (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Nov 18 2003 - 00:39:14 EST
We tend to use tries, which have very good performance characteristics. See
"bits of unicode" on my site: www.macchiato.com.
► शिष्यादिच्छेत्पराजयम् ◄
----- Original Message -----
From: "Theodore H. Smith" <email@example.com>
Sent: Mon, 2003 Nov 17 18:21
Subject: Re: Ternary search trees for Unicode dictionaries
> I've looked into the TST thing.
> I'm not sure that it is optimal, despite how popular they are!
> Look at this, if I add "1", "2","3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9" to a
> TST, they will all be in a line, in the tree. All will be reference via
> the "high" node.
> So, to find "9", I have to read through 9 items!
> Now, I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. It's just that compared to a
> binary search on an array, in this example, a TST does more work.
> When reading in data, that has already been sorted, I think this could
> be a problem. It's fine for randomly ordered data, but with sorted
> data... I can't tell how much of a problem it could be.
> This is the kind of structure that punishes neat people. An unexpected
> payback for the effort of being neat and ordered.
> I'm quite new to this, and so I don't know if there is a good solution
> to making the tree's balanced without imposing huge overhead, or if in
> practice, this will be a problem.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 18 2003 - 01:27:53 EST