January 4, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Hi all,
Is the index technology in Yukon still based on same ol' B-Trees, or is it something like CopperEye technology?
Thanks
January 5, 2005 at 12:52 am
By saying "something like CopperEye technology" you make it sound like this is something everybody knows about. Unfortunately, CopperEye's technology is patent pending and under wraps. Do you know how they implement their technology? If you don't, then there really isn't any way to answer your question, is there? I don't mean that in a snooty way, but I mean ... honestly, how can we answer whether a relatively known technology (like SQL Server 2005 indexing) is similar to an unknown technology (like CopperEye)? As far as I can tell, they are not telling what makes their product tick. Until they do, their claims cannot be substantiated.
I just looked, and there is very little that comes up about CopperEye on Google Groups. I still think that it is not at all proven whether CopperEye can back all the claims they are making, in spite of the very nice technical ads they publish as white papers. Even on their own ROI calculators, it is pretty easy to come up with reasonable scenarios where B-tree is much faster than CopperEye. See http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.sqlserver.server/browse_thread/thread/3976123f7104bd33/ddfed5df70cf0139?q=coppereye&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dcoppereye%26qt_s%3DSearch+Groups%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#ddfed5df70cf0139 for details (make sure you get the whole URL).
At any rate, SQL Server 2005 indexes are still based on derivitives of the B-tree family, as far as I know.
If you know more about how CopperEye works, then by all means post something and we should be able to give you some additional feedback.
Cheers,
Chris
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 1 (of 1 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply