Subj : Re: Balanced trees vs. B-trees To : comp.programming From : Ben Pfaff Date : Fri Sep 09 2005 03:53 pm "Duck Dodgers" writes: > Ben Pfaff wrote: >> "Duck Dodgers" writes: >> Mainly, I'd suggest that B-trees are more complicated than >> red-black or AVL trees and don't offer any speed advantage that >> I am aware of. > > I'm not so sure about being more complicated. Compared to a decent > non-recursive AVL or red-black tree, a non-disk oriented B-tree seems > less complicated. To me, that seems like a surprising statement. However, I have not actually implemented a memory-only B-tree, so I may not have a good basis for comparison. I would be interested in seeing, say, a B-tree and an AVL tree implemented in a similar manner, to be able to do the comparison. I am not aware of a library that includes both. Is anyone else? > Been there, read that (as well as everything else you've written on > trees). :-) I like to think I have a strong understanding of binary > trees and their balanced variants, but what I'm really looking for is a > good comparison of B-trees and balanced trees. Especially after that > terribly vague sentence due to your editor. ;-) I'm sure if I don't > find one, and probably even if I do, I'll make my own. If you do so, would you mind passing it along? I have never seriously considered the possibility that a B-tree would be simpler, so I would consider looking it over a good learning experience. -- "I didn't say it was your fault. I said I was going to blame it on you." .