Boost Users :
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [multiindex] Why not to add B+Tree index to multiIndex?
From: Cory Nelson (phrosty_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-21 09:33:51
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:18 AM, <joaquin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> fgmailbox escribiÃ³:
>> 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?
The b+tree implementation here: http://idlebox.net/2007/stx-btree/
Seems to boast greater speeds than std::multiset, but I question if
that is merely due to having far less allocations with the b+tree.
-- Cory Nelson
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