[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: equality indexing
At 11:39 PM 1/20/2004, Howard Chu wrote:
>If we used a Btree for the attribute indexes, and used the actual attribute
>value (instead of the hash that we use now) for the key, we could use BDB's
>Range feature to do >= indexing as well as equality. (I'm not sure we get <=
>indexing out of this, haven't thought it all the way through yet.)
>As a compromise, we can use a "prefix" with the hash appended.
This comprise is problematic as it means that many non-equal
values would share the same index key. While not too problematic
for ordering matching, it likely is for server-side sorting
We may be better off looking into order-preserving key
>E.g., use the
>first 4 bytes of the actual attribute value, plus the current equality hash.
>That way our equality lookups are still reasonably compact, and still
>unambiguous, but we also have a means for doing loose ordering indexing.
> -- Howard Chu
> Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun
> http://www.symas.com http://highlandsun.com/hyc
> Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support