Re: AW: pg_index.indislossy - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: AW: pg_index.indislossy
Date
Msg-id 29539.994786593@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: AW: pg_index.indislossy  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: AW: pg_index.indislossy  (ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers))
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> But why is this called lossy?  Shouldn't it be called "exceedy"?

Good point ;-).  "lossy" does sound like the index might "lose" tuples,
which is exactly what it's not allowed to do; it must find all the
tuples that match the query.

The terminology is correct by analogy to "lossy compression" --- the
index loses information, in the sense that its result isn't quite the
result you wanted.  But I can see where it'd confuse the unwary.
Perhaps we should consult the literature and see if there is another
term for this concept.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: AW: pg_index.indislossy
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code)