> Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su> writes:
> > On Thu, 17 May 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We will also want to look at upgrading the non-btree index types to allow
> >> concurrent operations.
>
> > am I right you plan to work with GiST indexes as well ?
> > We read a paper "Concurrency and Recovery in Generalized Search Trees"
> > by Marcel Kornacker, C. Mohan, Joseph Hellerstein
> > (http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/kornacker97concurrency.html)
> > and probably we could go in this direction. Right now we're working
> > on adding of multi-key support to GiST.
>
> Yes, GIST should be upgraded to do concurrency. But I have no objection
> if you want to work on multi-key support first.
>
> My feeling is that a few releases from now we will have btree and GIST
> as the preferred/well-supported index types. Hash and rtree might go
> away altogether --- AFAICS they don't do anything that's not done as
> well or better by btree or GIST, so what's the point of maintaining
> them?
We clearly have too many index types, and we are actively telling people
not to use hash. And Oleg, don't you have a better version of GIST rtree
than our native rtree?
I certainly like streamlining our stuff.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
