| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pål Stenslet <paal(dot)stenslet(at)exie(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Should Oracle outperform PostgreSQL on a complex |
| Date: | 2005-12-18 10:27:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1134901670.2964.140.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, 2005-12-18 at 15:02 +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Yeah - the quoted method of "make a cartesian product of the dimensions
> and then join to the fact all at once" is not actually used (as written)
> in many implementations
But it is used in some, which is why I mentioned it.
I gave two implementations, that is just (1)
> - probably for the reasons you are pointing out.
> I found these two papers whilst browsing:
>
>
> http://www.cs.brown.edu/courses/cs227/Papers/Indexing/O'NeilGraefe.pdf
> http://www.dama.upc.edu/downloads/jaguilar-2005-4.pdf
>
>
> They seem to be describing a more subtle method making use of join
> indexes and bitmapped indexes.
Which is the option (2) I described.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-12-18 13:48:52 | Re: Should Oracle outperform PostgreSQL on a complex |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-12-18 06:50:33 | Re: Should Oracle outperform PostgreSQL on a complex |