Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments

From: Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments
Date: 2013-10-30 14:23:04
Message-ID: 1383142984.89582.YahooMailNeo@web172604.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> LSM-trees seem patent free

I'm no expert, and I gave it just a look some time ago: it looked to me very complicated to get right... and as far as I remember you don't get that much gain, unless you go multi-level which would complicate things further

> Please somebody advise patent status of Y-trees otherwise I wouldn't bother.
 
y-trees look much more easier to get right... (and to me they also make more sense, but I'm not skilled enough to judge). 

There's also the FD-tree, which looks a lot like the (patented...) fractal tree:
http://www.ntu.edu.sg/home/bshe/fdtree_pvldb.pdf

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hiroshi Saito 2013-10-30 14:29:44 Re: How can I build OSSP UUID support on Windows to avoid duplicate UUIDs?
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-10-30 14:20:56 Re: appendStringInfo vs appendStringInfoString