On Sunday, January 6, 2013 7:32:45 PM UTC-8, JT wrote:
> No a dynamic alloc memory pointer solution using a binary tree will > not have any empty indeces.
Why do you think I pointed you at the page for the binary insertion sort? How do you pass through the binary tree without comparisons? Even if you do dynamic leveling it takes time and the results will depend upon the order in the "unordered" set.
The old Burroughs DMSII database supported ISAM, B-tree, and hash access methods to retrieve data. Each had their place. Hash was by far the fastest access as long as one didn't have too many overflow pages but it wasn't very good for sequential access of the data and the data wasn't ordered other than by hash algorithm.
It's interesting that SQLServer seems to handle ordered insertion into a b-tree much faster than the Unisys DMSII did. It seems to keep more information lying around. Maybe it just keeps more of the index in memory. Back in the day 64K was a lot of memory, now we're thowing 10s of G at machines. I don't really know and don't care as long as the results are satisfactorally fast. I can import millions of records in a few minutes and that's good enough. I can keep several indexes on huge tables and get the data back out very quickly. That's good enough for me. I don't care to know the specifics of the system's internals unless performance is suffering.
You don't know what you're talking about. You talk like a beginner. I don't like responding this way to anyone because I don't like being responded to this way by anyone. Everyone's a beginner at something. Go read up on sorts then try writing your own. You're not up to speed on the basics yet. There's nothing worse than a rude beginner.