Why not do the unique sequential number replacement at index time rather than query time?

Erik

On Mar 25, 2004, at 6:26 PM, Eric Jain wrote:

I will need to have a look at the code, but I assume that in
principal it should be possible to replace the strings with
sequential integers once the sorting is done?

I don't understand the question.

I need to: Sort by a field containing 1M distinct strings. While I can't
afford to waste much memory for the entire duration of the application,
loading all strings into memory temporarily is possible. A solution may
therefore be to load all strings into memory, sort them, and then
replace them with sequentially numbered integers. The question is: Could
this approach work, or did I overlook anything?



--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to