Boost Users :
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [multiindex] Why not to add B+Tree index to multiIndex?
From: Dilts, Daniel D. (ddilts_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-21 08:27:16
>> we can use multiindex as a memory db,but the multiindex only support
>> hash index and Order index(RB TREE),why not to add b+ Tree Index to
>> multiindex to make it much faster .
>I'm no expert in B+ trees, but I understand that these structures are
>more effective than regular binary trees when secondary storage (i.e.
>hard disk) is used, which is not the case for an in-memory container
>like multi_index_container. Have you any reference on the performance
>of B+ trees in in-memory scenarios?
My understanding is that B-tree variants are better for secondary storage lookups and T-trees are better for in-memory lookup.
A quick reference would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-tree . I know that isn't a definitive source, but I would think it would be a good place to start looking.
This e-mail transmission contains information that is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you receive this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy or disseminate it in any manner. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. Please reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After replying, please erase it from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated.
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net