| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AW: pg_index.indislossy |
| Date: | 2001-07-10 17:36:33 |
| Message-ID: | 29539.994786593@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> But why is this called lossy? Shouldn't it be called "exceedy"?
Good point ;-). "lossy" does sound like the index might "lose" tuples,
which is exactly what it's not allowed to do; it must find all the
tuples that match the query.
The terminology is correct by analogy to "lossy compression" --- the
index loses information, in the sense that its result isn't quite the
result you wanted. But I can see where it'd confuse the unwary.
Perhaps we should consult the literature and see if there is another
term for this concept.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-10 17:46:08 | Re: AW: pg_index.indislossy |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-10 17:04:16 | Re: AW: AW: pg_index.indislossy |