Why not simply call it "range index"? That's all a min-max pair is anyway, a
range/interval definition. Simple and easy to say. Also, I have no problem
with "minmax index" personally. I think its best to name this after what it is
rather than some non-descriptive but marketing name, or at least I really DON'T
like "big data/table index" etc. -- Darren Duncan
On 2014-06-17, 7:08 PM, robert7390@comcast.net wrote:
> If this is going to be the start of a new type of index then maybe that's how you market it ie. part of a suite, or
class,of optimized indexes.
>
> Robert Bernier
>
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
> Original Message
> From: Josh Berkus
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 6:17 PM
> To: Jonathan S. Katz
> Cc: PostgreSQL Advocacy
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need a better name for MinMax indexes
>
> On 06/17/2014 02:43 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One of the features for 9.5 will likely be "minmax" indexes, which are
>>> indexes which index only the upper and lower bounds of each data page,
>>> making for a very compact index ... like 100MB for a 100GB table.
>>>
>>> The working name for these are "minmax" indexes which is not very
>>> compelling and unlikely to reach users for how cool and useful they are.
>>> Suggestions on an alternate name?
>>
>> At the risk of sounding trite and clichéd: "big data index" or "big table index" - after all, it is an index that
youwant to use on a big table.
>
> Except that these likely aren't going to be the only "big data indexes"
> we ever have.
>
> Maybe "Compressed Range Indexes"? Pretty wordy, though.
>
