Fwd: Re: RTREE Index on primary key generated by a sequence

Oopps was not a group reply, sorry all you reader of the list :-)

----- Forwarded message from Jean-Paul ARGUDO <jean-paul(dot)argudo(at)IDEALX(dot)com> -----

From: Jean-Paul ARGUDO <jean-paul(dot)argudo(at)IDEALX(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] RTREE Index on primary key generated by a sequence

> > Since I was at first Oracle DBA, I've been told many times at
> > professional trainings that when there is a table wich primary key is
> > generated by a sequence, it is worth create a RTREE index on it rather
> > than a BTREE (for index balancing reasons).
>
> Huh?
>
> RTREEs are for two-or-more-dimensional data (the implementation in PG
> only handles 2-D, IIRC). So they're not applicable to scalar data.
> In any case, the claim that RTREEs are more readily balanced than BTREEs
> seems totally unfounded to me.
>
> In PG, the btree implementation is by far the best-tested,
> best-optimized index access method we have; for example, it's the only
> one that has decent support for concurrent access. If you want to use
> one of the other ones, I'd recommend you have a darn good reason.
>
> regards, tom lane

Thanks Tom for such good advice :)

Thus, I made a big mistake this is not RTREE that I am talking about but
BTREE with reversed keys. It's the Oracle keyword REVERSE that perturbed
me :-)

So, what about BTREEs with reversed keys?

Sorry again for the mistake. Thanks for the response.

--
Jean-Paul ARGUDO IDEALX S.A.S
Consultant bases de données 15-17, av. de Ségur
http://IDEALX.com/ F-75007 PARIS

----- End forwarded message -----
--
Jean-Paul ARGUDO IDEALX S.A.S
Consultant bases de données 15-17, av. de Ségur
http://IDEALX.com/ F-75007 PARIS