On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Matthew Wilcox <mawil...@microsoft.com> wrote: > I'm not at all against the idea of having a tree which supports ranges, > except that we already have one; the interval tree. Did you investigate > using the interval tree for your use case?
I am continuing to investigate, but that is orthogonal to whether Konstantin's changes are an improvement for the radix implementation. Hmm, would we have ended up with two data-structures if a range-based radix was available? The benefits I see is that it simplifies insertion as it no longer needs to explicitly manage the order of the entries, and, iiuc, let's the user skip the sibling-to-head conversion when it is not needed which simplifies lookups.
