"David Rowley" <dgrowley@gmail.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm. B-M-H has worst case search speed O(M*N) (where M = length of
>> pattern, N = length of search string); whereas full B-M is O(N). Maybe we
>> should build the second table when M is large?
> I'll look into this. If it pays off for longer searches I'll submit a patch.
> I won't have the time until after the 15th, so perhaps that's in November's
> commit fest?
Yes. Let's get B-M-H in during this fest and then you can look into
whether a follow-on patch is worthwhile.
regards, tom lane
