RE: Index rebuilding

On Mon, November 15, 2004 3:46 am, Cary Millsap said:
> only if) all leaf nodes have the same distance to the root." By this
> definition, Oracle B*-tree indexes are ALWAYS balanced, and NEVER
> un-balanced. This point is not in contention, correct?

Well, the reason they are called B-trees is exactly that: the "B" stands for "balanced". There are numerous texts on the Net defining this so I won't insult anyone's intelligence by providing a link. But if anyone wants to learn a bit about modern tree applications, I suggest a read of the ReiserFS Linux file system site, there is a true forest (pun intended) there.

> I think what's happening is that people who are complaining about
> un-balanced-ness are redefining the word "balance" to mean something
> completely different.

Bingo. One thing is a visual representation of the actual data and another is what actually is taking place in the software.

> this case--decades. It's one of the things that drives me nuts about the
> Oracle culture, this bastardization of carefully defined, =
> well-established
> terms for the convenience of some Oracle author who writes more than he
> reads. :)

LOL! How true!

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l