On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:37:54AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> 1) Please respect the list style of properly quoting responses inline,
>and only responding to messages that are somewhat related to the
>previous content
> 2) You ask a lot of question, without actually responding to response
Hi,
On 2019-05-27 12:40:07 +0200, Sascha Kuhl wrote:
> Where I can I find research on trees and indexing related to postgresql?
1) Please respect the list style of properly quoting responses inline,
and only responding to messages that are somewhat related to the
previous content
2) You ask
Dear moderator,
Can you inform me after you (as a mailing list) have changed something
related to my work. I like to keep track of my success.
Regards
Sascha Kuhl
Sascha Kuhl schrieb am Mo., 27. Mai 2019, 16:07:
> Would not
>
> Sascha Kuhl schrieb am Mo., 27. Mai 2019, 16:06:
>
>> To give yo
Where I can I find research on trees and indexing related to postgresql?
Sascha Kuhl schrieb am Mo., 27. Mai 2019, 11:14:
> Can you bring me to the research showing b-tree is equally performant? Is
> postgres taking this research into account?
>
> Jonah H. Harris schrieb am Sa., 25. Mai 2019,
>
T-tree (and variants) are index types commonly associated with in-memory
database management systems and rarely, if-ever, used with on-disk
databases. There has been a lot of research in regard to more modern cache
conscious/oblivious b-trees that perform equally or better than t-tree.
What’s the u
Hi,
I compared two data structures realistically by time, after estimating big
O. T-tree outperforms b-tree, which is commonly used, for a medium size
table. Lehmann and Carey showed the same, earlier.
Can you improve indexing by this?
Understandably
Sascha Kuhl
Just another bit faster.pdf
De
