| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pål Stenslet <paal(dot)stenslet(at)exie(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Should Oracle outperform PostgreSQL on a complex |
| Date: | 2005-12-18 22:28:37 |
| Message-ID: | 1134944917.2964.226.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 11:13 +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> > My understanding: Teradata and DB2 use this.
>
> FWIW - I think DB2 uses the successive fact RID buildup (i.e method 2),
> unfortunately
I think you're right; I was thinking about that point too because DB2
doesn't have index-organised tables (well, sort of: MDC).
I was confused because IBM seem to have a patent on (1), even though it
seems exactly like the original NCR/Teradata implementation, which
predates the patent filing by many years. Wierd.
It's a minefield of patents....
> I haven't got a working copy of DB2 in front of me to test.
True, not all copies work :-)
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-12-19 02:36:16 | Re: make bulk deletes faster? |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-12-18 22:21:04 | Re: Should Oracle outperform PostgreSQL on a complex |