Re: Indexing - comparison of tree structures

Dear moderator,

Can you inform me after you (as a mailing list) have changed something
related to my work. I like to keep track of my success.

Regards

Sascha Kuhl

Sascha Kuhl <yogidabanli(at)gmail(dot)com> schrieb am Mo., 27. Mai 2019, 16:07:

> Would not
>
> Sascha Kuhl <yogidabanli(at)gmail(dot)com> schrieb am Mo., 27. Mai 2019, 16:06:
>
>> To give you another fair hint: big O estimations would have revealed such
>> a difference.
>>
>> Sascha Kuhl <yogidabanli(at)gmail(dot)com> schrieb am Mo., 27. Mai 2019, 14:06:
>>
>>> I understand that changing is never easy
>>>
>>> Sascha Kuhl <yogidabanli(at)gmail(dot)com> schrieb am Mo., 27. Mai 2019, 13:52:
>>>
>>>> You don't have to be rude: social communication is higher than looking
>>>> and studying in a mailing list db. For me, at least;)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the direction and permission (I'm respectful with the work
>>>> of others)
>>>>
>>>> Jonah H. Harris <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> schrieb am Mo., 27. Mai 2019,
>>>> 13:05:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 5:14 AM Sascha Kuhl <yogidabanli(at)gmail(dot)com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you bring me to the research showing b-tree is equally
>>>>>> performant? Is postgres taking this research into account?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not trying to be rude, but you've been asking rather general
>>>>> questions; our mailing list is archived, searchable, and probably a better
>>>>> use of everyone's time for you to consult prior to posting. Per your
>>>>> question, to my knowledge, there is no active work on changing our primary
>>>>> b-tree index structure, which is based on Lehman and Yao's b-link tree.
>>>>> Given the maturity of our current implementation, I think it would be
>>>>> rather difficult to improve upon it in terms of performance, especially
>>>>> considering concurrency-related issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jonah H. Harris
>>>>>
>>>>>