It COULD BE a knapsack problem, but it SHOULDN'T be a knapsack problem. Not with a full database!
As to my intelligence - I'm no genius. Despite all claims to the contrary, few are. Fortunately, you don't have to be a genius to code up a database. Just kinda bright and willing to work. I didn't mean the "quite mad" in the derogatory way that you took it. It's just a mis-step. Databases are organized so that this kind of problem, which is common, gets chewed up and spit out, with ALL the possible answers (no misses), and no combinatorial nightmare, either. When you get more experience with database techniques, you'll see what I'm talking about. Lots of programming tricks are used, with lots of indicies. No "knapsacks", though, too inefficient and slow, and not needed. That's why they use a bunch of little tricks, in the first place. I'm not a database programmer, but I did code up a little non-relational database, just for fun. In doing that, I was struck by the immense power of using indexed ranges on the data. My little program doesn't use these (not needed), but you don't have to be hit by the on-coming train to know that the train is a very powerful thing, indeed. Adak --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Algorithm Geeks" group. To post to this group, send email to algogeeks@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
