> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
