Re: index rebuilding...

Noons wrote:

> "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

Sounds to me like someone is going to be doing some block dumps pretty soon.

Or at least I hope so. It would be great to have a definitive answer.

Daniel Morgan Received on Sun Feb 02 2003 - 16:11:10 CST