From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "erik quanstrom" <quanstro@quanstro.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu, Sam <sah@softcardsystems.com>
References: <57471c9f2e6b9a4c77886fffb87d244d@terzarima.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.60.0511090910050.15638@athena>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0511090910050.15638@athena>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Scaleable mail repositories.
Message-Id: <20051110012431.6F23F10F89@dexter-peak.quanstro.net>
Date: Wed,  9 Nov 2005 19:24:31 -0600
Cc: 
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a9df6c2c-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

suffix arrays create an index that is bigger than the 
original data. regardless of the theoretical O(1) mumble,
the size of the index is a major drawback.

erik

Sam <sah@softcardsystems.com> writes

| 
| In the not-so-distant past I was part of a three man
| effort to write a web site indexer / search engine
| generator.  My job was to take the indexed files / urls
| (they sucked them down with java) and create a suffix
| tree database that could be searched upon via cgi.  I
| don't have any specific numbers, but it was quite fast.
| 
| This was when google was just becoming known and once
| we realized we could point google at a website the
| project was abandoned.
| 
| The whole point of using suffix trees is linear time
| search wrt the size of the search string (note: not
| the size of the searched text).  Seems like it's
| a good candidate for this task.
| 
| Sam