Content deleted Content added
Removed Gawrychowski & Kociumaka cite. I don't see how their algorithms - all with worse than O(n) time complexity and limited to integer alphabets - can *possibly* be "optimal" as claimed here, since in the preceding paragraph we noted a COMPLETE suffix array can be computed in O(n) time and it's obviously only a further O(n) operation to filter that result down to a sparse suffix array. I have not studied the papers closely but surely the optimality claim just trivially cannot be true? |
m →External links: HTTP to HTTPS for SourceForge |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 28:
Enhanced suffix arrays (ESAs) are suffix arrays with additional tables that reproduce the full functionality of suffix trees preserving the same time and memory complexity.{{sfn|Abouelhoda|Kurtz|Ohlebusch|2004}}
== Definition ==
Line 376:
* [http://code.google.com/p/compression-code/downloads/list Suffix sorting module for BWT in C code]
* [http://www.codeodor.com/index.cfm/2007/12/24/The-Suffix-Array/1845 Suffix Array Implementation in Ruby]
* [
* [http://pizzachili.dcc.uchile.cl/ Project containing various Suffix Array c/c++ Implementations with a unified interface]
* [https://github.com/y-256/libdivsufsort A fast, lightweight, and robust C API library to construct the suffix array]
|