> They should, in theory, be faster than btrees -- O(1) not O(log N) page > fetches per lookup. In practice they don't seem to be faster, and > nobody's bothered to find out exactly why. Again, this isn't a terribly > encouraging precedent for implementing some other index type that's > supposed to (sometimes) be faster than btrees.
Yes, I understand. Which is also why I was curious to know if the "claims" those papers (and the databases using them) make were real... Thank you everybody for your replies. Leonardo -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
