@Puneet, to store anything on a machine, you will need to have a pointer to it else there is no question of accessing it. I am guessing the question emphasized on reducing the size of the B+ tree. Also, with B+ trees, you have sequence pointers at the data record level. Therefore, if these data records are stored in a single chunk, bringing the chunk into memeory is good enough. An additional storage structure will not be required.
On Jul 28, 1:27 am, Puneet Gautam <[email protected]> wrote: > @bharath: To store the bunch of records together also, we gonna need > another useful ds like "linked list" or "array" which again points to > the problem of excessive storage or excessive pointers... > correct me if am not..! > > On 7/28/11, bharath <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > @Dumanshu: A B+ tree is a multi-level index. It indexes the index > > until the final level is small enough to fit into a data block that > > can fit in memory. > > > On Jul 27, 10:11 pm, Dumanshu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Use multilevel indexing > > >> On Jul 27, 11:07 pm, himanshu kansal <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > > >> > if u hv say 20 million records and u have to create a b+ tree then you > >> > might be storing 20 million pointers at the leaf level....how can u > >> > optimize this(using b+ tree only)??????? > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Algorithm Geeks" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Algorithm Geeks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks?hl=en.
