Re: Something lighter than a database file . . .

[David Gibbs <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

James H H Lampert wrote:
> Would anybody have any suggestions for something that 
> would:
> 
> 1. Be lighter than a temporary database file, preferably 
> living in memory, instead of on disk, and having less 
> overhead than a file,

Memory / disk ... what's the difference?  At least on the iSeries there
isn't much difference.

> 2. Yet still be capable of expanding to contain whatever 
> data records are put into it,
> 3. While rejecting duplicate records?

Keyed data queue?

david