Re: [HACKERS] has anybody else used r-tree indexes in 6.5?

From: Bernard Frankpitt <frankpit(at)pop(dot)dn(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] has anybody else used r-tree indexes in 6.5?
Date: 1999-06-19 21:12:11
Message-ID: 376C07AB.54E211AB@pop.dn.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I read through some of the papers about R-trees and GIST about a year
ago,
and it seems that estimating costs for R-tree searches (and GIST
searches) is
not so straightforward as B-Trees.

Hellerstein et al. 1995 write
"...currently such estimates are reasonably accurate for B+ trees
and less so for R-Trees. Recently, some work on R-tree cost
estimation has been done by [FK94], but more work is required to bring
this to bear on GISTs in general...."

The reference that they give is

[FK94] Christos Faloutsos and Ibrahim Kamel. "Beyond Uniformity and
Independence: Analysis of R-trees using the concept of fractal
dimension.
Proc. 13th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database
Systems, pp 4--13, Minneapolis, May 1994

I don't have the Faloustos paper. The R-tree code authors, and the GIST
authors just used the B-Tree code as an expedient solution.

Bernie Frankpitt

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message gravity 1999-06-20 00:11:28 anyone build postgres 6.5 ( or 6.4 ) on IRIX 6.3 lately?
Previous Message Adam Haberlach 1999-06-19 18:49:03 Re: [HACKERS] BeOS port