4 ms·
Also, it's very hard to make a b+tree that is ever faster than other data-structures in RAM. Obviously if you don't need (or only rarely need) in-order travers
by aidenn0 1y ago
Also, it's very hard to make a b+tree that is ever faster than other data-structures in RAM.
Obviously if you don't need (or only rarely need) in-order traversing (or related operations like successor), hash-tables are very fast.
If you do need in-order traversing, for small amounts of data, sorted arrays are very fast, and for large amounts of data various types of prefix-tries do very well.
- apelapan 1y agoIf you ever write a blog post about these things, I'd love to see some measurements! :-)
- aidenn0 1y agoYeah, I really should put something out there. It may be that my b+trees are suboptimal, and some sunlight on it would help.
- apelapan 1y agoMeasurements of actual implementations make for fruitful, constructive discussion. Doesn't need to be perfect to be useful and interesting. Hope to see it on the front page!