Re: index rebuilding...

Pete Sharman wrote:

> 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;

Us academics hang on every pointed jab. <g>

Daniel Morgan Received on Mon Feb 03 2003 - 16:23:14 CST