Tom Lane writes: > I wonder why you didn't propose Boyer-Moore instead, as that would have > some advantage for natural language text as well.
> The difficulty with B-M is the need for a table indexed by character > code, which at first glance looks impractical for wchars. But it seems > to me that we could use "wchar % 256" as the table index, meaning that > wchars with the same trailing byte share the same table entry. That > would lose some efficiency compared to an exact implementation, but the > limited table size would outweigh that except in the most pathological > cases. hash table? The main difficulty with BM is verification and understanding "good suffix shift" (the second part of BM) (I don't understand it entirely). ---- Ajtkulov Pavel [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly