Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:14641 comp.lang.c:19728
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!tiktok!meissner
From: meissner@tiktok.dg.com (Michael Meissner)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: ndbm again, is it worth for files which may utmost have 100 records
Keywords: ndbm effciency etc
Message-ID: <7470@xyzzy.UUCP>
Date: 3 Jul 89 12:25:16 GMT
References: <160@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu.edu>
Sender: usenet@xyzzy.UUCP
Reply-To: meissner@tiktok.UUCP (Michael Meissner)
Distribution: na
Organization: Data General (Languages @ Research Triangle Park, NC.)
Lines: 11

In article <160@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu.edu> kannan@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (R. Kannan) writes:
| 
| Is it worth to use ndbm for files which may utmost contain 100 records.

If you are going to have so few records, why not just use an empty
directory, and make each record a separate filename, using some
suitable trasnformation function on the key for the name of the file.
--
Michael Meissner, Data General.
Uucp:		...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!meissner		If compiles were much
Internet:	meissner@dg-rtp.DG.COM			faster, when would we
Old Internet:	meissner%dg-rtp.DG.COM@relay.cs.net	have time for netnews?