[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081031233614.GA24960@logfs.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 00:36:15 +0100
From: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To: Sean Young <sean@...s.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] B+Tree library
On Fri, 31 October 2008 20:17:45 +0000, Sean Young wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 01:46:44PM +0100, Joern Engel wrote:
> > General advantages of btrees are memory density and efficient use of
> > cachelines. Hashtables are either too small and degrade into linked
> > list performance, or they are too large and waste memory. With changing
> > workloads, both may be true on the same system. Rbtrees have a bad
> > fanout of less than 2 (they are not actually balanced binary trees),
> > hence reading a fairly large number of cachelines to each lookup.
>
> Which reminds me:
>
> find_vma() uses rbtrees. Now I assume find_vma() is called far more than
> mmap() and friends. Since avltree are balanced (unlike rbtrees) lookups
> will be faster at the expense of extra rotations during updates.
Maybe I should have been clearer. Rbtrees _are_ balanced trees. They
are not balanced _binary_ trees, but balanced 234-trees in a binary
representation.
> Would patches for avltrees be accepted?
The question is whether they are an improvement. As always.
Jörn
--
Das Aufregende am Schreiben ist es, eine Ordnung zu schaffen, wo
vorher keine existiert hat.
-- Doris Lessing
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists