| From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Skype Technologies OY" <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
| Cc: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Jie Zhang" <jzhang(at)greenplum(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: | 2006-07-25 20:39:11 |
| Message-ID: | C0EBCF7F.2AD78%llonergan@greenplum.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
On 7/25/06 1:31 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Yeah, we finally gave up on rtree entirely. I don't want to see any
> other index AMs languishing in the closet like that. If bitmap can
> hold its own to the extent that people are interested in working on
> it/improving it, then great, but I'm worried that it's not going to
> have a wide enough use-case to attract maintainers.
How do we close the gap?
I think Jie is interested in maintaining it, and we're looking to extend the
range of applications for both the AM and extensions that use the raw bitmap
comparators made available to the executor. This should be just the start
of some really great work on speedy access using bitmaps.
Even as it sits, the on-disk bitmap is over 100x faster in cases where it's
suited and the other commercial DBMS have had this popular feature for
years.
- Luke
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-25 20:46:29 | Re: On-disk bitmap index patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-25 20:31:53 | Re: On-disk bitmap index patch |