Zitat von Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org>:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Stefan Strasser <strasser@uni-bremen.de> wrote:
Zitat von Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org>: ...
here`s a proposed library by bob walters that deals with large containers on disk:
I don`t think it implements a B-trees at this point (but some kind of tree, see trans_map), but aims to provide an infrastructure for any kind of tree or container.
That library seems to deal with a higher, more database -like, level.
I`m not sure if that`s the case. if your goal was just to implement a STL "map" interface with a B-tree data structure instead of a rb-tree I would see the difference, but you stated that your implementation is aimed towards disk-based B-trees. then I don`t see how you don`t end up with some of the things STLdb tries to do, like logging and crash recovery. in case it is the transaction and concurrency stuff of STLdb that reminded you of "database-like" features, I don`t think that makes it an entirely different problem domain. for example, Berkeley DB can be used as a simple associative container on disk, without any transactions (and is even sold as such seperately), but can optionally be used with transactions.
Interesting in its own right, and with some overlap in applications, but not really competitive with a b-tree associative container AFAICS.