Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem

> Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)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?

I certainly like streamlining our stuff.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026