add fst data structure #17
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Joxit
reviewed
May 13, 2019
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know why, but it seems that the structure is slower than expected as replacement for Set....
The benchmark : https://gist.github.com/Joxit/32ccd5b5f63b474f30e707d804cbda25
|
I just pushed some new commits which refactor it, it's only intended to be used for prefix and suffix queries. |
missinglink
force-pushed
the
fst
branch
4 times, most recently
from
0cdc2dc
to
948e822
Compare
|
That's cool, you also added metadata 😄 |
|
I had a play with your benchmarking tool and I think there is something wrong with my FST implementation which makes it use way too much RAM. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
A graph structure which is very efficient for querying prefix (or postfix) matches.
I actually didn't test the performance yet but it should be
O(log n)which is better than our existingO(n)approach.... or something like that, actually
nhas no relevance, it's simplyO(c)where c is the number of characters in the word.