[hfs-user] Clarification needed wrt B/B*-Trees
Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:03:33 +0100
Thanks a ton! - that answers my question...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Day" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Entwicklung" <email@example.com>
Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [hfs-user] Clarification needed wrt B/B*-Trees
On Sunday, March 24, 2002, at 10:59 AM, Entwicklung wrote:
> As far as I can gather from the definitions and the documentation, HFS
> uses a B*-Tree and HFS+ uses a B-Tree.... does anybody know why ? Does
> this mean that in case of HFS I would have to perform an additional
> redistribution of keys to keep the nodes just 2/3 full ( which I am not
> considering right now ) ? The HFS-Specs as such do not mention anything
> about keeping the nodes just 2/3 full ...or am I wrong there ?
It's just an imprecise use of terminology. Both HFS and HFS Plus can
use the same implementation for B-trees (and they do in Mac OS 8, 9 and
Mac OS X).
Actually, I think "B+-Tree" is more accurate. A B+-Tree is really just
a B-tree where all of the data is kept in leaf nodes (and interior nodes
contain only keys and pointers). The B-trees in HFS and HFS Plus do
have that characteristic.
The difference between B-tree and B*-Tree is a difference in how full
the nodes are kept in the face of inserts and deletes. Apple's code
splits an overly full node into two nodes (not splitting two siblings
into three like a B*-tree). However, Apple's code does have an extra
optimization that tends to keep nodes fuller than a plain B-tree. When
a node is too full to insert a new record, it first tries to "rotate"
one or more records to a sibling. I know it tries rotating to the left;
I can't remember whether it tries rotating to the right. If rotation is
not possible, the node is split into two.