X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E8A9DC8A5 for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:21:10 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17399-02 for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:21:08 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from smtp.nildram.co.uk (smtp.nildram.co.uk [195.112.4.54]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B609DC89A for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:21:04 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (unknown [84.12.183.55]) by smtp.nildram.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E31426C364; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:21:01 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: Should Oracle outperform PostgreSQL on a complex From: Simon Riggs To: Mark Kirkwood Cc: Tom Lane , Bruce Momjian , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?P=E5l?= Stenslet , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <43A5DE39.6080901@paradise.net.nz> References: <200512170428.jBH4S2W23715@candle.pha.pa.us> <1134810953.2964.117.camel@localhost.localdomain> <8627.1134843222@sss.pgh.pa.us> <43A4C348.7050703@paradise.net.nz> <1134901670.2964.140.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43A5DE39.6080901@paradise.net.nz> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:21:04 +0000 Message-Id: <1134944464.2964.218.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.028 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028] X-Spam-Score: 0.028 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/446 X-Sequence-Number: 16267 On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 11:10 +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > >>I found these two papers whilst browsing: > >> > >> > >>http://www.cs.brown.edu/courses/cs227/Papers/Indexing/O'NeilGraefe.pdf > >>http://www.dama.upc.edu/downloads/jaguilar-2005-4.pdf > >> > >> > >>They seem to be describing a more subtle method making use of join > >>indexes and bitmapped indexes. > > > > > > Which is the option (2) I described. > > > > Ok - I misunderstood you on this one, and thought you were describing > the "star transformation" - upon re-reading, I see that yes, it's more > or less a description of the O'Neil Graefe method. Papers look interesting; I'd not seen them. My knowledge of this is mostly practical. O'Neil and Graefe seem to be talking about using join indexes, which is probably method (3)... oh lordy. Best Regards, Simon Riggs