From: "(Doug Baskins)" <doug@... (Doug  Baskins)> (Doug Baskins)
Date: 2002-09-06T08:49:25+09:00
Subject: Re: Time to retire st_* and replace it with Judy?

Mauricio Fern�ndez <batsman.geo@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<20020902071849.GA20445@kodos>...
> 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...

Ok, what could a compare routine do besides compare bit-by-bit in a hashed
environment?

Doug Baskins <doug@sourcejudy.com>