On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 13:54 +0100, J=C3=B6rn Engel wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, 31 October 2008 12:32:41 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > >=20
> > > > Would there be an easy way to use 48-bit keys? Or variable length k=
eys?
quoted text
> > >=20
> > > Variable as in one implementation for several trees with different
> > > sizes, yes.  Variable as in one tree with differently sized keys, no.
> >=20
> > Ok, I guess that would blow up the key size to 6+1+32 bytes, or 10 (5)
> > longs. Bit large.
>=20
> Yes.  Insanely large keys are a good indication to better avoid btrees.

OTOH, there is no need to put the SSID in if I put a small list into
each node, effectively using the tree instead of the hash table and then
disambiguating the unlikely case of multiple SSID in a list.

quoted text
> I actually have something that compiles now.  It still needs a bit of
> water and soap before I'd consider it presentable, but turned out to be
> less complicated than expected.

:)

johannes