 |
 |
Actually, one of the strengths of B-trees is that they perform better than alternatives when *not* kept in RAM. Excerpt from Wikipedia: : B-trees have substantial advantages over alternative implementations : when node access times far exceed access times within nodes. This : usually occurs when most nodes are in secondary storage such as hard : drives. By maximizing the number of child nodes within each internal : node, the height of the tree decreases, balancing occurs less often, : and efficiency increases. Usually this value is set such that each : node takes up a full disk block or an analogous size in secondary : storage. A B-tree's nodes are likely to be cached in RAM whenever practicable, of course. Paul. On Dec 2, 2005, at 3:36 PM, Andrew Nagy wrote: > Roy Tennant wrote: > >> Andrew, just as an additional data point, we have millions of records >> indexed in our Lucene-based XTF system, and the response isn't too >> bad even on a development server. > > Can you and others on this list briefly describe your hardware platform > for this? I am assuming this is not running on an old 486 that is > lying > around in your office :) > > Do you feel that the searching is processor intensive and may be best > suited for a load balanced infrastructure? I am implementing my pilot > using eXist which stores the XML Database in B Trees which from my > knowledge is an in memory data structure so therefor the machine would > need lots of ram however I am curious as to the processing > requirements. > > Thanks, you guys rock! > > Andrew > -- Paul Hoffman :: [log in to unmask] :: http://www.nkuitse.com/