Re: Content Based Addressing

"David Cressey" <dcressey_at_verizon.net> wrote in message news:D3rag.1553$nq5.556_at_trndny06...
> The first time I ever saw an index to a body of data (a file of flat
> records, to be specific), I thought it was a kludge. I figured this sort
> of thing would last a few years until somebody built a cheap, fast, and
> ample associative memory. Here it is, 30 years later, and indexes are
> still with us.

> Anyways, I'm starting this thread with the idea of discussing content
based
> addressing. Basically, content based addressing says, "I don't know
where
> it is, but when you find it, this is what it's going to look like".
This
> description is intentionally vague.

It is hard to keep things in order. :-)
Some of us, if we can afford, will hire a maid/wife. :-)

> I want it to cover search engines that invert some body of text, as well
as
> indexes that permit keyed access to certain rows in a table.

Full text search (and update ?) ? Genomic databases ? Semistructured databases ?
Relational databases ?

> The whole idea of content based addressing seems to me to be such a
powerful
> idea that it keeps popping up in IT all over the place.

It occured to me that if we also use the address numbers to store data, the memory capacity will almost double. :-)
Also, "if we start using base 1 instead of base 2, the computer will be twice as fast." :-)

> Of course, in
> c.d.t. the RDM is going to be the first thing most people think of when
> they ponder content based addressing.

XML ? :-)
> But RDM isn't the only place where content based addressing is useful.

> I was intrigued with the idea that the index "is" the database, over in
> another discussion. I'm even more intrigued with the idea that the log is
> the database.

The index is the log ? :-)
The log is the index ? :-)

> Anyways, I think that content based addressing is a large part of why so
> many people have used RDM and/or SQL to good advantage in making flexible
> use of data.

Other part is that some people have square heads. :-)

> Other [o]pinions welcome.

I hope you are not annoyed by the "style" I use (I used to use it a lot more when I was younger :-). Received on Wed May 17 2006 - 14:51:51 CEST