Re: [Fwd: Re: [GENERAL] Unisersal B-Tree] - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [Fwd: Re: [GENERAL] Unisersal B-Tree]
Date
Msg-id 27662.989006170@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to [Fwd: Re: [GENERAL] Unisersal B-Tree]  (Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
> ... Think of a query like this:
> 
> select a,b,c from table where ( a>min_a and a<max_a ) and ( b>min_b and b<max_b )
> 
> In a conventional implementation you have two indexes on attributes a and b.
> But to run this query the database engine profits only from one index. It has
> to run through all the values of the other. This gets even worse if you use more
> constraints, and this scheme is typical for things like OLAP.
> 
> With the new methode you add one UB-index that embraces a and b. And you run
> only once through this index.

And this is different from a multicolumn btree index how?

I looked at the referenced website when this message first went by,
and was unhappy at the apparently proprietary nature of the technology
(not to mention the excessive hype ratio).  I lost interest ...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Ken Hirsch"
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: New Linux xfs/reiser file systems
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: "PQgetvalue: ERROR!