Re: Content Based Addressing

David Cressey wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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. 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 opinions welcome.

David,

It is my experience that specific and well-defined questions get better responses than vague open-ended ones. Received on Wed May 17 2006 - 02:06:47 CEST