skip to main content
10.1145/602259.602265acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

An empirical comparison of B-trees, compact B-trees and multiway trees

Published:01 June 1984Publication History

ABSTRACT

It is well-known that the B-tree data structure yields excellent worst-case search costs and for that reason is widely employed in the organization of external files and in the implementation of data bases. In this paper, we examine general B-trees empirically and compare them with a less restrictive structure, the general multiway tree, and a more restrictive structure, the compact B-tree. We compare search costs, insertion costs, and space costs of these three structures for both small and large orders and indicate their relative utility for large and small data sets. Although there are cases when general multiway trees are more effective than B-trees, this is not the case for most practical situations. Compact B-trees are also shown to degrade rapidly in the presence of insertions and are therefore only useful for static data sets.

References

  1. Adelson-Velskii, G. M., Landis, E. M.: An information organization algorithm. DANSSSR, 146, (1962) 263-266.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayer, R. and McCreight, E. Organization and maintenance of large ordered indexes Acta Informatica 1,3 (1972), 173-189.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Comer. D. The ubiquitous B-tree Computing Surveys 11,2 (1978), 121-138 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Foster, C. C. Information storage and retrieval using AVL trees. Proc. ACM 20th National Conf. (1965) 192-205. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Knuth, D. E. The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. 3. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. (1973) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Rosenberg, A. L. and Snyder, L. Minimal comparison 2,3 trees. SIAM J. Computing 7,4 (1978). 465-480Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Rosenberg, A. L. and Snyder, L. Time- and space-optimality in B-trees. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 6,1 (1981), 174-193. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Sussenguth, E. H., Jr.: The use of tree structures for processing files. Comm. ACM 6,5 (1963) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Wirth, N. Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (1976) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Yao, A. C. On random 2,3 trees. Acta Informatica 9,3 (1978), 159-170.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  1. An empirical comparison of B-trees, compact B-trees and multiway trees

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGMOD '84: Proceedings of the 1984 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data
      June 1984
      339 pages
      ISBN:0897911288
      DOI:10.1145/602259

      Copyright © 1984 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 June 1984

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate785of4,003submissions,20%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader