> 
> Try this strategy:
> 1. Use an algorithm that gives erroneous results but is very fast
> 2. Use a postprocessing algorithm that corrects the results.
> 
> If you don't worry too much about avoiding collisions in your current
> algorithm, then you might be able to accelerate it quite a 
> bit. This will
> give you a small number of false positives. To find them, 
> then on any set
> of anagrams you have to perform a test that is exact but slow. Its
> slowness won't be a problem because the test is only run on a 
> few small
> subsets of the original set.
> 
> 
> matju

I thought about this idea and I think at least one other person on the list
has suggested it as an 
approach. I am curious to see if it really could be fast.

Thanks!

Barry