Re: contrib/tree

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>
To: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
Cc: dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: contrib/tree
Date: 2002-01-25 19:38:50
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, 2002-01-26 at 00:17, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> Don,
> does your approach handle directed graphs ( DAG ) ?
> Actually our module is just a result of our research for new
> data type which could handle DAGs ( yahoo, dmoz -like hierarchies)
> effectively in PostgreSQL.

Why not use intarray's instead of (n=6)bit-arrays?

Is it just space savings ( 64(0) of anything is enough ;) ) or something
more fundamental ?

> While we didn't find a solution we decided to release this module
> because 64 children would quite ok for many people.
> Of course, 128 would be better :-)

4294967296 would be enough for almost everybody :)

> How about 'move' operation in your approach ?

I have not looked at his code long enough but it seems to still need
replacing all child nodes bitarray tails ...


In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vince Vielhaber 2002-01-25 20:24:10 sequence indexes
Previous Message Oleg Bartunov 2002-01-25 19:17:34 contrib/tree