That's largely correct, though couchdb's btree is neither fish nor fowl. It doesn't have an order (B-trees generally do) and it does store values in the inner nodes (B+trees do not)
As Paul might say it's a B~tree On Mar 13, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Randall Leeds wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:40, Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote: > >> There's no linked list running between the leafs. A b+tree doesn't >> require one, though it's a common addition. The b+tree algorithm is a >> revision over a binary tree (where inner nodes point strictly at one >> left and one right item). To be a b+tree you need to hold many >> pointers on an inner node. >> > > I thought being a B-tree was to have many pointers in inner nodes, being a > B+tree was to have *only* pointers in inner nodes and the values all at the > leaf nodes. > Whatever it's called, the latter is what CouchDB has.
