From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fractal tree indexing |
Date: | 2013-02-13 17:54:46 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMLUCyChn1BrAwCvE3_qtbwp3fzrhZuCa+ocoaSLqtGjFg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 13 February 2013 16:48, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> On 13.02.2013 18:20, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
>>>
>>> The basic idea of a fractal tree index is to attach a buffer to every
>>> non-leaf page. On insertion, instead of descending all the way down to
>>> the correct leaf page, the new tuple is put on the buffer at the root
>>> page. When that buffer fills up, all the tuples in the buffer are
>>> cascaded down to the buffers on the next level pages. And recursively,
>>> whenever a buffer fills up at any level, it's flushed to the next level.
>>
>>
>> [ scratches head... ] What's "fractal" about that? Or is that just a
>> content-free marketing name for this technique?
>
>
> I'd call it out as a marketing name. I guess it's fractal in the sense that
> all levels of the tree can hold "leaf tuples" in the buffers; the structure
> looks the same no matter how deep you zoom, like a fractal.. But "Buffered"
> would be more appropriate IMO.
I hope for their sake there is more to it than that. It's hard to see
how buffering can be patented.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2013-02-13 17:56:58 | Re: Fractal tree indexing |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-02-13 17:43:00 | Re: Alias hstore's ? to ~ so that it works with JDBC |