Re: SCSI vs. IDE performance test - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Ben
Subject Re: SCSI vs. IDE performance test
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.44.0311261402080.7403-100000@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SCSI vs. IDE performance test  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: SCSI vs. IDE performance test  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
Base-two artihmetic sounds pretty broad. If only you could come up with a
scheme for division and multiplication by powers of two through
bitshifting.....

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> Randolf Richardson <rr@8x.ca> writes:
> >> They've managed to patent ye olde elevator algorithm??  The USPTO really
> >> is without a clue, isn't it :-(
>
> >         It's not the USPTO's fault -- the problem is that nobody objected to it
> > while it was in the "Patent Pending" state.
>
> If their examiner had even *minimal* competency in the field, it would
> not have gotten to the "Patent Pending" state.  Algorithms that are well
> documented in the standard textbooks of thirty years ago do not qualify
> as something people should have to stand guard against.
>
> Perhaps I should try to patent base-two arithmetic, and hope no one
> notices till it goes through ... certainly the USPTO won't notice ...
>
>             regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>       subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
>       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Index on array element
Next
From: Martijn van Oosterhout
Date:
Subject: Re: postgres metadata