Jump to content

Talk:Fractal tree index

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dhruvbird (talk | contribs) at 04:07, 1 May 2014 (This looks like a cache-oblivious data structure/(crystalized) algorithm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconArticles for creation C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Note icon
This article was accepted on 23 April 2014 by reviewer Ktr101 (talk · contribs).
WikiProject iconComputer science C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Notability and COI

I've added notability and COI tags to the article. I've been unable to find articles on this topic independent of the group that invented the data structure. Without independent, in-depth reliable sources per WP:RS, this article may fail to satisfy notability guidelines per WP:GNG. The COI tag comes from the article creator also being one of the inventors of the algorithm and also an author on two of the cited papers: "Cache-Oblivoius streaming B-trees" and "The TokuFS Streaming File System". Per WP:COI, this can lead to problems with the neutrality of the article. Editors knowledgable about the topic should review the content for neutrality--although without independent reliable sources to rely on, this may be difficult. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terse line maybe?

The article says "There are several choices for how the buffers are flushed, all leading to similar I/O complexity."

It seems you are hinting at whether all buffers in a node are flushed or only the fullest buffer is flushed, and comparing/contrasting the costs resulting due to one of the 2 decisions. Is that so? If that is the case, then it is totally not clear that it is what is meant. Some more elaboration would be super helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhruvbird (talkcontribs) 02:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


There are a bunch of choices for how and when to flush: as you point out, you can flush only the fullest buffer or all. But you can also flush-on-full only or also flush-on-query. None of these change the asymptotic analysis. It's all an engineering choice, based on typical workloads. Does that help? Farach (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks! That makes sense. However, I would like to see some proof or a sketch (maybe hand-wavey) of why it doesn't affect the asymptotics and whether the constants involved are different for either case. Dhruvbird (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This looks like a cache-oblivious data structure/(crystalized) algorithm

However, there are no links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cache-oblivious_algorithm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhruvbird (talkcontribs) 15:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Although the COLA is cache oblivious, the current version of the FTI is not. It is based on the B-epsilon tree, which explicitly codes for a block transfer size. Farach (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Ah! Yes, I forget - thanks for the clarification. Dhruvbird (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]