Gavin Henry wrote:
<quote who="Howard Chu"> > Taking a cue from our MySQL friends - MySQL uses T-trees for their > in-memory > structures. These are balanced trees, like AVL trees. But instead of just > one > data item per tree node, they have N items per node. (Presumably N is a > compile-time constant.) The advantage to using T-trees is that inserts and > deletes have less impact on the overall tree, thus minimizing the need for > rebalancing. > > I would expect that they perform about as well as AVL trees for lookups. > Anyone interested in experimenting here and reporting on the relative > performance?
I wonder what PostgreSQL does, as it's much much faster than MySQL.
Faster at what? MySQL, like OpenLDAP, has a dozen or so backends to choose from. In what context does the above statement mean anything? If you're talking about transactions, disk I/Os, different database backend libraries, etc., that's not interesting here. I was specifically talking about in-memory data.