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

Re: Block B-Tree concept

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Block B-Tree concept
Date: 2006-09-29 14:55:20
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.

  Heikki Linnakangas

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-09-29 14:59:22
Subject: Re: Faster StrNCpy
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2006-09-29 14:39:25
Subject: Re: Block B-Tree concept

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