Collection Object -- I need to know your needs.

[Ruslan Zasukhin]

On 8/1/06 11:10 PM, "Shaun Wexler" <dev at macfoh.com> wrote:

>> For example, right now, yes you CAN store array of ulongs into BLOB.
>> But you have no way build index on this ulong values.
>> 
>> As workaround can be store them into TEXT field as coma separated
>> values,
>> and mark this as IndexByWords...Also assign in Collator - order as
>> numbers.
>> But this is already looks somehow less efficient.
>> 
>> You see?
> 
> What would satisfy this requirement is a Red-Black tree structure
> stored as BLOB and thus has no need to be indexed.

Hmm, not agree.

RB Tree inside of BLOB give you ability load this into RAM,
And do search. Right ?

But simply sorted array can allow this.

But you cannot search through the whole column.
I want be able find records which have arrays that contain value 3.

You see? Having index this can be done very fast.


> You can fit it  
> into 128 bytes per record (require power-of-two, and is G5 cacheline
> sized), using a 64-bit OID, 23-bit parent index whose high bit
> denotes the node's color, and two 24-bit children indexes, where all
> indexes are relative to BLOB bufferstart + index * nodesize.

> Searching can walk the tree, or you can quickly copy all objects into
> an array, bitset, etc.  Also is possibility to store objects and tree
> index as two buffers which each grow by multiples of page size (64
> objects), and that is efficient for copyless memmove by page
> remapping (only needed when modifying stored BLOB).


-- 
Best regards,

Ruslan Zasukhin
VP Engineering and New Technology
Paradigma Software, Inc

Valentina - Joining Worlds of Information
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

[I feel the need: the need for speed]