From: | Ben <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SCSI vs. IDE performance test |
Date: | 2003-11-26 22:04:57 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0311261402080.7403-100000@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Base-two artihmetic sounds pretty broad. If only you could come up with a
scheme for division and multiplication by powers of two through
bitshifting.....
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Randolf Richardson <rr(at)8x(dot)ca> writes:
> >> They've managed to patent ye olde elevator algorithm?? The USPTO really
> >> is without a clue, isn't it :-(
>
> > It's not the USPTO's fault -- the problem is that nobody objected to it
> > while it was in the "Patent Pending" state.
>
> If their examiner had even *minimal* competency in the field, it would
> not have gotten to the "Patent Pending" state. Algorithms that are well
> documented in the standard textbooks of thirty years ago do not qualify
> as something people should have to stand guard against.
>
> Perhaps I should try to patent base-two arithmetic, and hope no one
> notices till it goes through ... certainly the USPTO won't notice ...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2003-11-26 22:54:17 | Re: postgres metadata |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-26 21:58:51 | Re: Index on array element |