All databases store a certain amount of empty space. Though it's
possible that an RDBMS could allocate space for entire tables, and
copy the entire table for each insert, but such a design is not very
likely. Instead, I would expect storage to be allocated using an
underlying B-tree. But even in MUMPS, if you type
SET ^GLOBAL(0)=$G(GLOBAL(0))_"A"
the space for the extra "A" has to go somewhere! It's simply too
inefficient not to allocate storage in chunks (typically 1K, 4K, or
something similar).
===
Gregory Woodhouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Without the requirement of mathematical aesthetics a great many
discoveries would not have been made."
-- Albert Einstein
On Sep 19, 2005, at 12:37 PM, Kevin Toppenberg wrote:
So then, is the argument that relational databases store empty
space incorrect?
Kevin
On 9/19/05, Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is actually not true. flat tables are the abstraction presented
to the user (or programmer) with relational databases, but the
underlying storage model is, more likely than not, based on B-trees,
just as it is in MUMPS. This can be confusing, because the basic
abstraction presented to the user in MUMPS is multi-branching trees,
but that abstraction is not the same as the underlying storage model.
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
