Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Mathematical routines
Message-ID: <1509.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 13 Aug 90 03:45:10 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 31


 Date: 08-04-90 (14:55)              Number: 1681 (Echo)
   To: ROGER BICKNELL                Refer#: 1679
 From: ZAFAR ESSAK                     Read: NO
 Subj: CATALOGUE NUMBERS             Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

 RB> So one could keep the cat. # as a string and use a string 
 RB> comparison through a linked-list of records to search and 
 RB> insert/sort the records. 

 RB> Or one could keep an index array and use the cat. # as an 
 RB> index/offset into the array by hashing the string into a 
 RB> binary index value - and then reference the data via the 
 RB> index array. 

 I was hoping to avoid methods using multiple string comparisons, 
 and am looking for some way to compress the catalogue ID that would 
 provide unique keys for each ID that might be a double number. 
 I think this would provide a smaller and faster Index. 

 Your second suggestion might come close, especially if the hashing 
 resulted in a single value for each catalogue ID. 

 Zafar. 
 ---
  * Via Qwikmail 2.01

 NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886   
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us