Re: index rebuilding...

"Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:b1ipul$gtj$1$8300dec7_at_news.demon.co.uk and I quote:

>
> Of course, this does mean that Oracle doesn't
> use B*Trees, as it's manuals have claimed since
> at least 5.1 - it uses a version of B+trees.

Akshally, the whole thing is terminally confusing. According to Knuth, B+trees and B*trees are quite different. And Oracle doesn't help with their "modified algorithm" B+trees thing. It all adds to the confusion.

I'd bet if someone spends some time going through the actual index handling source code, it will come out that the algorithm is neither one nor the other and is in fact quite unique.

It's one of the few areas where makers can still have some significant implementation differences, and of course distinguishing factors. The only reason we don't see the marketing dingbats pouring all over it is that the whole thing is arcane, to put it very mildly.

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_optusnet.com.au.nospam