Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I don't see anyone very excited about r-tree these days; have you >> noticed that no one has stepped up to repair the known semantic errors? >> I wouldn't spend any time on it in the prover.
> That sort of thing is always self-fulfilling. If rtrees were fast, > logged and rad, then more people would use them :) The prophecy I'd like to see become self-fulfilling is that we get GIST to production quality and then r-trees wither on the vine because there's no reason to use them. I'm not aware of any reason to prefer r-tree to an equivalent GIST opclass... regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly