| From: | "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, "Jie Zhang" <jzhang(at)greenplum(dot)com>, "Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: On-disk bitmap index patch |
| Date: | 2006-07-29 04:34:57 |
| Message-ID: | 3E37B936B592014B978C4415F90D662D03E6CE6D@MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mark,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc [mailto:mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc]
> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 9:26 PM
>
> But irrefutable? Irrefutable is not true. :-)
How about unrefuted. The evidence has not been refuted, and not
directly discussed or discounted.
BTREE can not be optimized to produce the results we've presented, the
discussion about char(n) datatypes was irrelevant as we had shown
results for INT, numeric and char/varchar and they were all dramatically
better than BTREE.
I am hopeful this discussion takes a rapid turn toward the quantitative
assessment of the results.
- Luke
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2006-07-29 06:50:05 | Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features? |
| Previous Message | mark | 2006-07-29 04:26:23 | Re: On-disk bitmap index patch |