Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Leonardo Francalanci
Subject Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments
Date
Msg-id 1383142984.89582.YahooMailNeo@web172604.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
> LSM-trees seem patent free

I'm no expert, and I gave it just a look some time ago: it looked to me very complicated to get right... and as far as
Iremember you don't get that much gain, unless you go multi-level which would complicate things further 

> Please somebody advise patent status of Y-trees otherwise I wouldn't bother.
 
y-trees look much more easier to get right... (and to me they also make more sense, but I'm not skilled enough to
judge). 

There's also the FD-tree, which looks a lot like the (patented...) fractal tree:
http://www.ntu.edu.sg/home/bshe/fdtree_pvldb.pdf



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: appendStringInfo vs appendStringInfoString
Next
From: Hiroshi Saito
Date:
Subject: Re: How can I build OSSP UUID support on Windows to avoid duplicate UUIDs?