From: | Bernard Frankpitt <frankpit(at)pop(dot)dn(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] has anybody else used r-tree indexes in 6.5? |
Date: | 1999-06-19 21:12:11 |
Message-ID: | 376C07AB.54E211AB@pop.dn.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I read through some of the papers about R-trees and GIST about a year
ago,
and it seems that estimating costs for R-tree searches (and GIST
searches) is
not so straightforward as B-Trees.
Hellerstein et al. 1995 write
"...currently such estimates are reasonably accurate for B+ trees
and less so for R-Trees. Recently, some work on R-tree cost
estimation has been done by [FK94], but more work is required to bring
this to bear on GISTs in general...."
The reference that they give is
[FK94] Christos Faloutsos and Ibrahim Kamel. "Beyond Uniformity and
Independence: Analysis of R-trees using the concept of fractal
dimension.
Proc. 13th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database
Systems, pp 4--13, Minneapolis, May 1994
I don't have the Faloustos paper. The R-tree code authors, and the GIST
authors just used the B-Tree code as an expedient solution.
Bernie Frankpitt
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | gravity | 1999-06-20 00:11:28 | anyone build postgres 6.5 ( or 6.4 ) on IRIX 6.3 lately? |
Previous Message | Adam Haberlach | 1999-06-19 18:49:03 | Re: [HACKERS] BeOS port |