Re: index rebuilding...

In article <Xns9317E6CDF5ADCmineminemine_at_210.49.20.254>, Noons says...
>
>DA Morgan <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in
>news:3E3D977E.D31B2DA0_at_exesolutions.com and I quote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>I'm afraid just block dumps won't be enough for this one.
>Source code would be needed, and fairly recent too.
>Maybe one of the "Danish round table" blokes will do it, they
>should have access to this.

OK, we have to put a stop to this immediately. The thought of Mogens Norgaard running around like King Arthur (which is where this analogy would get very quickly) just ain't pretty at all. :)

In any case, there are only a couple of people on the OakTable that I know of with access to the source code, and it's more than their job is worth to post details of it (or how it works) here. Sorry.

>
>Thing is: if you look at the definitions of B*tree and
>B+tree on the Net as well as on Knuth's books, they
>don't exactly match what is described in the Oracle literature,
>or what happens inside them old blocks. And then we have
>index key compression....
>
>All that makes the Oracle implementation, IMHO, quite
>difficult to pigeon-hole.

Totally agree. I'd even take it one step further and ask does it really matter anyway (apart from being interesting theoretical stuff of course!)? Still, I must say the "discussion" between Don and HJR has put a smile on my face each time I read a new bit!

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

HTH. Additions and corrections welcome.

Pete

SELECT standard_disclaimer, witty_remark FROM company_requirements; Received on Mon Feb 03 2003 - 10:46:59 CST