Dieter Maurer wrote:
Chris Withers wrote at 2006-4-18 08:34 +0100:
...
If having two isn't acceptable, then why do we have an I and O BTree's,
not to mention the special ones used for in-memory ZODB indexes? Surely
we should just have one BTree class?
Using "I" versus "O" BTrees makes a huge
Chris Withers wrote at 2006-4-18 08:34 +0100:
> ...
>If having two isn't acceptable, then why do we have an I and O BTree's,
>not to mention the special ones used for in-memory ZODB indexes? Surely
>we should just have one BTree class?
Using "I" versus "O" BTrees makes a huge difference for mass
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
in memory. Dieter estimates 20% to 35% slowdown for the C algorithms
(whatever that means), Tim seems to think it won't have such a big
effect. I guess we'll only know after some benchmarks.
Can we please not make any definite decisions until this issue has been
On 4/17/06, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact that IIBTrees is so widely used is exatly the reason
> I want to use 64-bits for the existing types rather than having to
> introduce a new type.
Oops, I was checking in the separated version of 64-bit BTrees while
this was landing in my
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fred Drake wrote:
I have a need for 64-bit BTrees (at least for IOBTree and OIBTree),
and I'm not the first. I've created a feature develo
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fred Drake wrote:
I have a need for 64-bit BTrees (at least for IOBTree and OIBTree),
and I'm not the first. I've created a feature development branch for
this, and checked in my initial implementation.
I've modified the existi
