Re: AW: pg_index.indislossy

> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > But why is this called lossy?  Shouldn't it be called "exceedy"?
> 
> Good point ;-).  "lossy" does sound like the index might "lose" tuples,
> which is exactly what it's not allowed to do; it must find all the
> tuples that match the query.
> 
> The terminology is correct by analogy to "lossy compression" --- the
> index loses information, in the sense that its result isn't quite the
> result you wanted.  But I can see where it'd confuse the unwary.
> Perhaps we should consult the literature and see if there is another
> term for this concept.

Seeing how our ODBC driver refrences it in previous releases, we are
going to have trouble changing it.  I always thought it was "lossy" in
terms of compression too.

I don't see it mentioned now in ODBC, but I think it used to be there. 
I changed it recently to check for word "hash" instead.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026