Re: unbalanced indexes -- common wisdom?

Sybrand Bakker <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message news:<rupneuc1hcf9rviejkd6kmhtdm4vbstrav_at_4ax.com>...
> On 22 May 2002 11:09:35 -0700, mikharakiri_at_yahoo.com (Mikito Harakiri)
> wrote:
>
> >There are so many useless options for creating an index, and the most
> >important one -- "balanced" -- seems to be missing. Would the standard
> >B-Tree implemented in any time in the future?
>
> Just FYI: ordinary Oracle indexes *are* balanced.

I'm sorry, I was distracted by the title: http://gethelp.devx.com/techtips/oracle_pro/10min/10min0601/10min0601.asp

I really meant fragmented. I know, this ugly index maintenance is unneccessary, as it doesn't improve performance -- but there is still a waisted storage. Since oracle created every possible option to manage storage, how did they forget about this one? Received on Wed May 22 2002 - 16:58:37 CDT