On Friday, 4 July 2014 at 12:18:54 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Yes they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_index#Clustered
You can obviously only do that for one index.
Ugh, and what happens in such hypothetical database if you update
its first row so it becomes 1 byte longer than before? Total
reordering of the whole database just to maintain that index?
That's very similar to the issue I posted above - wasteful
shuffling of big amounts of memory only because D's structs don't
support indirection by their nature, and you can't swap two
elements without copying their whole contents.
John Colvin said above that structs can be useful, even together
with sorting (and similar algorithms), if they are relatively
small. This is true, but this design is not scalable. As soon as
your program evolves and your struct grows with more and more
fields, D's sort on it becomes slower and slower, proportionally
to the struct's size. That's not the best behavior IMHO.
