2010/9/16 Ion Gaztañaga <igaztanaga@gmail.com>:
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