Re: [boost] Interest in B-tree library for Boost?

Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in B-tree library for Boost?
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-16 16:11:57

2010/9/16 Ion Gaztañaga <igaztanaga_at_[hidden]>:
> El 16/09/2010 3:08, Beman Dawes escribió:
>>>
>>> - Can this be adapted for in-memory use as well, with full non-POD
>>> support?
>>
>> No current plans for that. Why wouldn't you just a standard library
>> associative container for that?
>
> I think it's about performance/node overhead (less rebalances, you allocate
> arrays and not individual nodes). But for memory, T-Trees are the way to go.
> They are used by many in-memory DBs.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-tree
>
> "In computer science a T-tree is a type of binary tree data structure that
> is used by main-memory databases, such as Datablitz, eXtremeDB, MySQL
> Cluster, Oracle TimesTen and KairosMobileLite"

The point is that for memory resident data, it is better to use a data
structure known to be optimal for memory resident data. A B-tree
doesn't really qualify.

For disk resident data, it is better to use a data structure known to
be optimal for disk resident data. The B-tree has no serious
competitors for general purpose disk resident associative containers.
That's why I'm trying to keep the focus of the B-tree library proposal
on disk resident cases, and not get sidetracked into memory resident
cases. Something else is probably better for most general in memory
uses.

Thanks,

--Beman