Thomas Müller-2 wrote: > >> The part that's not clear to me is how this can be efficiently combined >> with >> an append-only storage format that's being discussed on the "[jr3] >> Unified >> persistence" thread. It wouldn't be good if every time a list of >> children >> is modified the persistence layer has to make a complete copy of the >> modified B-tree > > You only have to update the b-tree node that is modified. That may be > a hidden node (internal, hidden b-tree node) or a "real" node. >
In that case re-balancing of the tree will have to be taken into account, where multiple internal nodes of the tree can be modified as a result of an insertion or deletion. Also, it seems to me that technically we're probably talking about a B+ tree, as it makes sense that the real child nodes would all be pointed to from the leaf nodes. Jeff -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/jr3-Flat-hierarchy-tp1558925p1560979.html Sent from the Jackrabbit - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
