[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1225458436.5546.2.camel@johannes.berg>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:07:16 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] B+Tree library
On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 13:54 +0100, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Fri, 31 October 2008 12:32:41 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Would there be an easy way to use 48-bit keys? Or variable length keys?
> > >
> > > Variable as in one implementation for several trees with different
> > > sizes, yes. Variable as in one tree with differently sized keys, no.
> >
> > Ok, I guess that would blow up the key size to 6+1+32 bytes, or 10 (5)
> > longs. Bit large.
>
> Yes. Insanely large keys are a good indication to better avoid btrees.
OTOH, there is no need to put the SSID in if I put a small list into
each node, effectively using the tree instead of the hash table and then
disambiguating the unlikely case of multiple SSID in a list.
> I actually have something that compiles now. It still needs a bit of
> water and soap before I'd consider it presentable, but turned out to be
> less complicated than expected.
:)
johannes
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists