Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost library submission (poll for interest)
From: Bob Walters (bob.s.walters_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-05 20:18:50

On Jan 5, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Ion Gazta?aga <igaztanaga_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I think most in-memory databases use T-trees as main containers. I plan
> to add them as Interprocess containers for late 2010, but of course,
> that will depend on my free time. With those containers, we could speed
> up searches and waste less space.

Would the interface remain identical to map?
The current 'trans_map' can be revised slightly so that it would be
a transactional wrapper for any map implementation, leaving the
internals of storage to the implementation. Taking advantage of a
T-tree variant would then be very easy to accomplish.

One of the biggest challenges I'm seeing with high throughput on
map is that operations like insert() and erase() cannot be done to
concurrently by multiple threads, and consequently those
operations become a bottlneck. I'm doing operations like find()
and updates (to different entries) in parallel. A map implementation
which internally segmented itself into sections under independent mutexes in order to
permit highly concurrent modifications of any kind would be a big help.
Anyone know of any such implementations?

- Bob

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at