| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sascha Kuhl <yogidabanli(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Indexing - comparison of tree structures |
| Date: | 2019-05-25 00:15:38 |
| Message-ID: | CADUqk8XH=u9n9N1ar3VUrnfGZ-G=SP1daVxD7aOoE6bkcsMhGA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
T-tree (and variants) are index types commonly associated with in-memory
database management systems and rarely, if-ever, used with on-disk
databases. There has been a lot of research in regard to more modern cache
conscious/oblivious b-trees that perform equally or better than t-tree.
What’s the use-case?
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 5:38 AM Sascha Kuhl <yogidabanli(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I compared two data structures realistically by time, after estimating big
> O. T-tree outperforms b-tree, which is commonly used, for a medium size
> table. Lehmann and Carey showed the same, earlier.
>
> Can you improve indexing by this?
>
> Understandably
>
> Sascha Kuhl
>
--
Jonah H. Harris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | sharon clark | 2019-05-25 00:31:48 | GSoD Introductory Resources and Tutorial Projects |
| Previous Message | Ashwin Agrawal | 2019-05-25 00:06:25 | Confusing error message for REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY |