Path: news.easynews.com!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: DA Morgan <damorgan@exesolutions.com>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server
Subject: Re: index rebuilding...
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 14:11:10 -0800
Organization: EXE
Message-ID: <3E3D977E.D31B2DA0@exesolutions.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <o%WZ9.61302$c41.1415158@news2.telusplanet.net> <v3ghe8qj8vstf4@corp.supernews.com> <3EXZ9.53855$GX4.2199677@news2.east.cox.net> <m%e_9.36861$jM5.93877@newsfeeds.bigpond.com> <3E39A86C.3143C919@exesolutions.com> <69f6c1c8.0301301921.143657e6@posting.google.com> <998d28f7.0301310721.3c724ec@posting.google.com> <b1e710$sqa$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> <3E3AAC94.B8B6073C@exesolutions.com> <6By_9.37587$jM5.94689@newsfeeds.bigpond.com> <slrnb3plsp.3ds.hjp-usenet@teal.hjp.at> <b1ipul$gtj$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> <Xns9316D4AC3AB2Fmineminemine@210.49.20.254>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cache-Post-Path: yasure!unknown@mud43.drizzle.com
X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b5 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 39
Xref: newsfeed1.easynews.com comp.databases.oracle.server:174529
X-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 15:10:49 MST (news.easynews.com)

Noons wrote:

> "Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan@jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:b1ipul$gtj$1$8300dec7@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@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

