Well, I am now waiting on the approval of the set of dictionaries on the
LO Extension Center.
I made on listing with 11 externally hosted files to choose from.
word list
sizes
American English 98,000+ 217,000+ 390,000+ 638,000+
British English 98,000+ 217,000+ 390,000+ 638,000+
Canadian English 217,000+ 390,000+ 638,000+
Hopefully there will be an approval soon.
Now I can go and start working on some other things on my to-do list,
like rebuild an old IBM Server, repair a Compaq Presario, find a
inexpensive desktop and monitor for a friend 4 floor below me, etc.,
etc.. Plus I have several books to read, or finish reading, in the next
few weeks [1000+/- pages each]. Just this morning, I added taking
photos for a collage to the list of things needed to be done this
month. Who said "retired" life was going to be a life of rest and
relaxation? Not me.
.
On 11/10/2011 08:50 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
Hi :)
On the types of machines you sometimes use a performance hit would be very
noticeable. So, if there is no hit then the longer lists make a lot of sense.
The 102k difference is surely not a huge worry to anyone these days? I had
assumed that with a list twice as long the spell check might take about twice
as long too. It's good to hear i was so wrong :)
Many thanks for your hard work at all of this. I'm sure a lot of people
appreiate the results :)
Thanks and regards from
Tom :)
--- On Tue, 8/11/11, webmaster for Kracked Press
Productions<webmas...@krackedpress.com> wrote:
From: webmaster for Kracked Press Productions<webmas...@krackedpress.com>
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] 98, 000+ word list British dictionary, hyphen,
thesaurus dictionary
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Date: Tuesday, 8 November, 2011, 13:43
I have not seen any "performance hits" with my use of either the 98K or the
217K word list dictionaries. The actual time would difference would be really small. I
have not tried using a 390K or 638K word lists though. For a real large document that I
used for testing sometimes, you should not see any difference for spell checker lookup.
I do not know what type of searches are used in LO to search the word lists for
the word lookup, but for the old 80286 systems that I use to do this type of
programming with these 50K vs 638K list searches would take about a 1/10 of a
second difference for the same 100,000 word document. This was what I
generally got for my word list searches back in the 80's with the programming
samples I wrote. The professor wanted a timer included in the search software
so he could see how efficient your code was. College is where I got interested
in dictionary and word list searches and functions for spell checking. To
re-learn C++ after my second stroke, I write a program to create word lists
from e-book text and compare them with the current lists to see what new words
I could find.
The fact the the original .dic files had control codes after each word requires
the system to do the work to do the conversions and then use those options in
its searching. So having lists that do not need those control codes may make
spelling searched faster.
On 11/08/2011 03:13 AM, Mark Stanton wrote:
I'm always interested in "the most comprehensive".
Presumably there's a performance hit related to the size of
dictionary?
Mark Stanton
One small step for mankind...
-- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
--
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
