Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

B-Trees / B+Trees and duplicate keys

I'm investigating the possibility of putting together a custom storage scheme for my application. It's worth the effort of potentially reinventing the wheel, I think, because both performance and storage efficiency are a main objective and the data and operations on it are far simpler than everything provided by an RDBMS (no updates, no deletes, predefined set of queries).

I'm using just a small handful of web resources I've found about B-Trees and B+-Trees - Wikipedia, http://www.bluerwhite.org/btree/, http://slady.net/java/bt/view.php, http://www.brpreiss.com/books/opus6/html/page342.html (the last one is the most valuable).

Duplicate keys

The first problem I'm trying to solve is how to deal with duplicate keys - this tree will be acting as a DB index and for example there won't just be one 'thing' with 'color=red', so looking up 'red' in this tree should yield many results.

There are two solutions I have come up with so far. The first is simply having multiple entries in the tree for each of these. But when there are 100,000 or 1,000,000 'red' things in the tree.. is that very efficient for a tree structure? The second was to have just one entry for each key, but the 'payload' associated with each key points to a different block of data, which is a linked list pointing to all instances of items that are 'red'.

Is there a common / better option?

B+Tree nodes changing types

I wanted to check an assumption I'm making. Say you have a B+-Tree, height 2 - the external (leaf) nodes at level 2 hold 'actual data'. Then an insertion necessitates a split of a leaf node - the leaf node no longer holds 'actual data'. Am I right in thinking that in implementation terms because the data might be of a substantial size that you would instead store a kind of 'pointer' as the 'actual data' - so if a leaf node becomes a branch node, that pointer (of the same size) is instead updated to point to the new subtree?

By that I mean, internal and external nodes, they should be the same size really since external nodes might become internal ones, and shuffling data around isn't a good idea?

(Added the C# tag since I'm implementing this from scratch in C#.)

like image 894
Kieren Johnstone Avatar asked Aug 03 '11 08:08

Kieren Johnstone


People also ask

Why are keys duplicated in a B+ tree?

(Really) Duplicate keys. To handle duplicate keys in a B+ tree, as in multiple rows that have the same value, implementations typically force it to be unique by appending an additional hidden column to the table, and assigning it an auto-incrementing value when a record is created.

What are B-tree keys?

Each internal node of a B-tree will contain a number of keys. The keys act as separation values which divide its subtrees. So, yes, that would be the definition of "keys" for B-trees.

What is the difference between B Trees and B+ trees?

A B+ tree is similar to a B-tree, the only difference is that their leaves are linked at the bottom. Unlike B-tree, the nodes of the B+ tree do not store keys along with the pointers to the disk block. The internal nodes contain only keys and the leaf nodes contain the keys along with the data pointers.


2 Answers

Kieren, I'm sure you figured out by now that B+ trees grow by splitting upwards, so that a leaf node is always a leaf node, and internal nodes are always internal nodes. Eventually, you must split the root node, which turns that into two internals, and you define a new root. So to answer the second part of your question, you don't change node types.

Regarding the first part of your question, when you delete a data record from the DB, you will need to find all the keys that point to that particular record, and remove them. If you have to look through long linear lists to do that, deleting will be slow. I am assuming you are using a binary search within a node in order to quickly find the correct node element (key + pointer), so if you make that "node searching" mechanism include the ability to ask for a particular key + pointer combination, you can quickly find the correct key element to remove. In other words, make the data record pointer part of the search (only when searching for a particular data record's key). This does mean that the duplicate keys will be stored in the nodes in "data pointer" order, so as long as ordering of the duplicate keys is not important, this mechanism will work.

like image 99
Ken Kopelson Avatar answered Oct 10 '22 03:10

Ken Kopelson


Attempting to answer my own question.. I would welcome other answers too.

Duplicate Keys

The tree will store a reference to a list (memory) or linked-list (disk) of items with the given key, if duplicate entries for the same key is a possibility.

B+Tree nodes, changing types

In-memory, my nodes have an object reference, which can point to another node (in itself another valid B+Tree) in the case of an internal/branch node, or indeed data directly in the case of an external/leaf node. On disk, this would work in a very similar way: a 64-bit value for each 'link slot', as I have chosen to name them - either an offset in the file if pointing at a sub-node, or a block number if pointing to data directly (or the head of a linked-list in the case mentioned in the first part of the question).

like image 41
Kieren Johnstone Avatar answered Oct 10 '22 03:10

Kieren Johnstone