On Fri, 18 May 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 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?
We have rtree implementation using GiST - it incomplete, just box.
look at http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/postgres/gist/
We ported old code from pg95 time. But it's not difficult to port
remaining part. I'm not sure if our version is better, we didn't thoroughly
test, but seems that memory requirements is better and much faster
index construction.
>
> I certainly like streamlining our stuff.
>
>
Regards, Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
