Re: SCSI vs. IDE performance test

From: Ben <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SCSI vs. IDE performance test
Date: 2003-11-26 22:04:57
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0311261402080.7403-100000@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Base-two artihmetic sounds pretty broad. If only you could come up with a
scheme for division and multiplication by powers of two through
bitshifting.....

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> Randolf Richardson <rr(at)8x(dot)ca> writes:
> >> They've managed to patent ye olde elevator algorithm?? The USPTO really
> >> is without a clue, isn't it :-(
>
> > It's not the USPTO's fault -- the problem is that nobody objected to it
> > while it was in the "Patent Pending" state.
>
> If their examiner had even *minimal* competency in the field, it would
> not have gotten to the "Patent Pending" state. Algorithms that are well
> documented in the standard textbooks of thirty years ago do not qualify
> as something people should have to stand guard against.
>
> Perhaps I should try to patent base-two arithmetic, and hope no one
> notices till it goes through ... certainly the USPTO won't notice ...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2003-11-26 22:54:17 Re: postgres metadata
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-11-26 21:58:51 Re: Index on array element