I can't even see how you would adapt B-M to bit-string search.
That remains me of another of your questions. The trick is to consider that at every bit a new "byte" is introduced.
but building delta tables with 64-bit indices is obviously not on
From here to the end everything you say is mostly wrong. B-M for bit-strings can be implemented using a table of fixed size, that can comfortably fit in the L1 cache (needle size doesn't matter at all).
Even better, most of the time, all the work can be done on bytes, with very little bit-level fiddling.
In the worst scenario, the overhead over the brute-force approach would probably be a few machine instructions per haystack bit, on L1-cached data!
In reply to Re^11: [OT] The interesting problem of comparing (long) bit-strings.
by salva
in thread [OT] The interesting problem of comparing bit-strings.
by BrowserUk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |