From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2002-09-02T18:01:46+09:00
Subject: Re: Time to retire st_* and replace it with Judy?

On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 11:40:43AM +0900, Doug  Baskins wrote:
> After a posting I did yesterday, I decided to take a closer look
> at st_* library code.  Please correct me if I am wrong in the
> following discussion:
> 
>     The st_* library is a collection of "string" to "word" mapping
>     routines.  BUT, only the POINTER to the string is stored in the
>     internal st_* structures.  This implies that the comparison of the
>     pointer is enough to determine if the string is a match.  Now we are
>     in JudyL's territory (pointer to pointer mapping) instead of JudySL
>     (string to pointer mapping).  JudyL has been tuned!!!  I wrote the
>     st_* routines using JudyL and wrote a benchmark to compare with the
>     ruby-1.6.7 version of "st.c".  Since, JudyL does not have
>     collisions, there is no need for a collision structure.
[snip]

IMHO the st_* routines are meant to be more general than simple string->word
mapping :-( The key comparison function might be more complex than
bit-by-bit...


-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
  
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
	-- Unknown source