Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 15:30:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Greg Black <gjb@gbch.net> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: technical comparison Message-ID: <200105252230.f4PMUel44295@earth.backplane.com> References: <200105251718.VAA06296@aaz.links.ru> <nospam-990822371.18423@maxim.gbch.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
One word: B+Tree. Hash tables work well if the entire hash table fits
into memory and you know (approximately) what the upper limit on records
is going to be. If you don't, then a B+Tree is the only proven way to
go. (sure, there are plenty of other schemes, some hybrid, some
completely different, but B+Tree's have been long proven so unless you
want to experiment, just use one).
In general I agree that UFS's only major pitfall is the sequential
directory scanning. The reality, though, is that very few programs
actually need to create thousands or millions of files in a single
directory. The biggest one used to be USENET news but that has
shifted into multi-article files and isn't an issue any more. Now
the biggest one is probably squid. Databases are big storage-wise,
but don't usually require lots of files.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200105252230.f4PMUel44295>