| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: indxpath.c refactoring |
| Date: | 2005-06-11 16:27:40 |
| Message-ID: | 11677.1118507260@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> I don't see anyone very excited about r-tree these days; have you
>> noticed that no one has stepped up to repair the known semantic errors?
>> I wouldn't spend any time on it in the prover.
> That sort of thing is always self-fulfilling. If rtrees were fast,
> logged and rad, then more people would use them :)
The prophecy I'd like to see become self-fulfilling is that we get GIST
to production quality and then r-trees wither on the vine because
there's no reason to use them. I'm not aware of any reason to prefer
r-tree to an equivalent GIST opclass...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-06-12 00:11:00 | Re: libpq: remove unused code |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-06-11 13:01:21 | libpq: remove unused code |