Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Block B-Tree concept

From: Jan de Visser <jdevisser(at)digitalfairway(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>,Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>,"Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Block B-Tree concept
Date: 2006-09-29 15:08:58
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Friday 29 September 2006 10:55, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> >> I'm not very interested in the case where you have a lot of equal keys,
> >> I think the bitmap index am is more suitable for that.
> >
> > that indeed you meant to write "consecutive", and I've got a problem
> > with that: define "consecutive".  In a datatype independent fashion,
> > please.  I also wonder how you are going to implement splitting and
> > merging of runs, which will certainly be necessary if this isn't to be
> > a constantly-requires-REINDEX thing.
> I don't mean consecutive as in "1, 2, 3, 4, ... without gaps" but as in
> "A and B are consecutive in the index, if there's no value X in the
> index so that A < X < B". Maybe there's a better word for that.


Jan de Visser                     jdevisser(at)digitalfairway(dot)com

                Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Paul B. AndersonDate: 2006-09-29 15:12:08
Subject: Re: Stored procedure array limits
Previous:From: Paul B. AndersonDate: 2006-09-29 15:00:13
Subject: Re: Stored procedure array limits

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group