There are 2 main approaches to solve this problem:
We can solve this problem using recursion by breaking it down into smaller subproblems. At each step, we consider the current characters in both the text and pattern and make decisions based on what we encounter.
The key insight is to handle the '*' wildcard specially, as it can match zero or more characters. When we encounter a '*', we have two choices: either use it to match zero characters and move only in the pattern, or use it to match one or more characters by moving in the text.
where m is the length of the text and n is the length of the pattern. In the worst case, we might need to explore all possible combinations of matching.
for the recursion stack. The maximum depth of recursion is bounded by the sum of the lengths of the text and pattern.
To optimize the recursive solution, we can use dynamic programming to avoid redundant calculations. We'll create a 2D DP table where dp[i][j] represents whether the first i characters of the text match the first j characters of the pattern.
where m is the length of the text and n is the length of the pattern. We fill a 2D table of size m×n.
for the DP table. We need to store the result for each combination of text and pattern positions.
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829function isMatch(text, pattern): return recursiveMatch(text, pattern, 0, 0) function recursiveMatch(text, pattern, i, j): // Base cases if j == pattern.length: return i == text.length if i == text.length: // Remaining pattern must be all '*' for k from j to pattern.length - 1: if pattern[k] != '*': return false return true // Current character in pattern if pattern[j] == '*': // Match zero characters if recursiveMatch(text, pattern, i, j+1): return true // Match one or more characters return recursiveMatch(text, pattern, i+1, j) // Match single character if pattern[j] == '?' or pattern[j] == text[i]: return recursiveMatch(text, pattern, i+1, j+1) return false
Understand different approaches to solve the email filter system problem and analyze their efficiency.
We can solve this problem using recursion by breaking it down into smaller subproblems. At each step, we consider the current characters in both the text and pattern and make decisions based on what we encounter.
The key insight is to handle the '*' wildcard specially, as it can match zero or more characters. When we encounter a '*', we have two choices: either use it to match zero characters and move only in the pattern, or use it to match one or more characters by moving in the text.
To optimize the recursive solution, we can use dynamic programming to avoid redundant calculations. We'll create a 2D DP table where dp[i][j] represents whether the first i characters of the text match the first j characters of the pattern.
where m is the length of the text and n is the length of the pattern. In the worst case, we might need to explore all possible combinations of matching.
for the recursion stack. The maximum depth of recursion is bounded by the sum of the lengths of the text and pattern.
where m is the length of the text and n is the length of the pattern. We fill a 2D table of size m×n.
for the DP table. We need to store the result for each combination of text and pattern positions.
The recursive approach is more intuitive but can be very inefficient for large inputs due to redundant calculations. The dynamic programming approach solves this by storing intermediate results, making it much more efficient with a time complexity of O(m×n) instead of O(2^(m+n)). For the email filtering system where performance is critical, the DP approach is strongly preferred.
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829function isMatch(text, pattern): return recursiveMatch(text, pattern, 0, 0) function recursiveMatch(text, pattern, i, j): // Base cases if j == pattern.length: return i == text.length if i == text.length: // Remaining pattern must be all '*' for k from j to pattern.length - 1: if pattern[k] != '*': return false return true // Current character in pattern if pattern[j] == '*': // Match zero characters if recursiveMatch(text, pattern, i, j+1): return true // Match one or more characters return recursiveMatch(text, pattern, i+1, j) // Match single character if pattern[j] == '?' or pattern[j] == text[i]: return recursiveMatch(text, pattern, i+1, j+1) return false
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728function isMatch(text, pattern): m = text.length n = pattern.length // Create DP table dp = new boolean[m+1][n+1] // Empty text matches empty pattern dp[0][0] = true // Empty text can match pattern with '*' for j from 1 to n: if pattern[j-1] == '*': dp[0][j] = dp[0][j-1] // Fill the DP table for i from 1 to m: for j from 1 to n: if pattern[j-1] == '*': // Match zero characters or one or more characters dp[i][j] = dp[i][j-1] || dp[i-1][j] else if pattern[j-1] == '?' or pattern[j-1] == text[i-1]: // Match single character dp[i][j] = dp[i-1][j-1] else: dp[i][j] = false return dp[m][n]
There are 2 main approaches to solve this problem:
We can solve this problem using recursion by breaking it down into smaller subproblems. At each step, we consider the current characters in both the text and pattern and make decisions based on what we encounter.
The key insight is to handle the '*' wildcard specially, as it can match zero or more characters. When we encounter a '*', we have two choices: either use it to match zero characters and move only in the pattern, or use it to match one or more characters by moving in the text.
where m is the length of the text and n is the length of the pattern. In the worst case, we might need to explore all possible combinations of matching.
for the recursion stack. The maximum depth of recursion is bounded by the sum of the lengths of the text and pattern.
To optimize the recursive solution, we can use dynamic programming to avoid redundant calculations. We'll create a 2D DP table where dp[i][j] represents whether the first i characters of the text match the first j characters of the pattern.
where m is the length of the text and n is the length of the pattern. We fill a 2D table of size m×n.
for the DP table. We need to store the result for each combination of text and pattern positions.
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829function isMatch(text, pattern): return recursiveMatch(text, pattern, 0, 0) function recursiveMatch(text, pattern, i, j): // Base cases if j == pattern.length: return i == text.length if i == text.length: // Remaining pattern must be all '*' for k from j to pattern.length - 1: if pattern[k] != '*': return false return true // Current character in pattern if pattern[j] == '*': // Match zero characters if recursiveMatch(text, pattern, i, j+1): return true // Match one or more characters return recursiveMatch(text, pattern, i+1, j) // Match single character if pattern[j] == '?' or pattern[j] == text[i]: return recursiveMatch(text, pattern, i+1, j+1) return false
Understand different approaches to solve the email filter system problem and analyze their efficiency.
We can solve this problem using recursion by breaking it down into smaller subproblems. At each step, we consider the current characters in both the text and pattern and make decisions based on what we encounter.
The key insight is to handle the '*' wildcard specially, as it can match zero or more characters. When we encounter a '*', we have two choices: either use it to match zero characters and move only in the pattern, or use it to match one or more characters by moving in the text.
To optimize the recursive solution, we can use dynamic programming to avoid redundant calculations. We'll create a 2D DP table where dp[i][j] represents whether the first i characters of the text match the first j characters of the pattern.
where m is the length of the text and n is the length of the pattern. In the worst case, we might need to explore all possible combinations of matching.
for the recursion stack. The maximum depth of recursion is bounded by the sum of the lengths of the text and pattern.
where m is the length of the text and n is the length of the pattern. We fill a 2D table of size m×n.
for the DP table. We need to store the result for each combination of text and pattern positions.
The recursive approach is more intuitive but can be very inefficient for large inputs due to redundant calculations. The dynamic programming approach solves this by storing intermediate results, making it much more efficient with a time complexity of O(m×n) instead of O(2^(m+n)). For the email filtering system where performance is critical, the DP approach is strongly preferred.
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829function isMatch(text, pattern): return recursiveMatch(text, pattern, 0, 0) function recursiveMatch(text, pattern, i, j): // Base cases if j == pattern.length: return i == text.length if i == text.length: // Remaining pattern must be all '*' for k from j to pattern.length - 1: if pattern[k] != '*': return false return true // Current character in pattern if pattern[j] == '*': // Match zero characters if recursiveMatch(text, pattern, i, j+1): return true // Match one or more characters return recursiveMatch(text, pattern, i+1, j) // Match single character if pattern[j] == '?' or pattern[j] == text[i]: return recursiveMatch(text, pattern, i+1, j+1) return false
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728function isMatch(text, pattern): m = text.length n = pattern.length // Create DP table dp = new boolean[m+1][n+1] // Empty text matches empty pattern dp[0][0] = true // Empty text can match pattern with '*' for j from 1 to n: if pattern[j-1] == '*': dp[0][j] = dp[0][j-1] // Fill the DP table for i from 1 to m: for j from 1 to n: if pattern[j-1] == '*': // Match zero characters or one or more characters dp[i][j] = dp[i][j-1] || dp[i-1][j] else if pattern[j-1] == '?' or pattern[j-1] == text[i-1]: // Match single character dp[i][j] = dp[i-1][j-1] else: dp[i][j] = false return dp[m][n]