Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!isi.edu!gremlin!nrtc!maurit
From: maurit@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (Mark Aurit <maurit>)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: The Rushmore Technology from FoxPro
Message-ID: <25921@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com>
Date: 6 Jun 91 19:15:54 GMT
References: <1991Jun1.165211.27480@ugle.unit.no> <18164@venera.isi.edu>
Sender: news@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com
Reply-To: maurit@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (Mark Aurit)
Organization: Northrop Research & Technology Center, Palos Verdes, CA
Lines: 35

>In article <1991Jun1.165211.27480@ugle.unit.no> oysteing@idt.unit.no (Oystein Groevlen) writes:
>
>>My impression was that the technology is based on some technique where
>>indexes occupy much less space than usual. Thus, it is possible to
>>index all fields of a table and keep all indexes in memory. This way
>>queries can be processed with a minimum of disk access. Is this your
>>impression, too?
   I seem to remember that Rushmore is a combination of things,
essentially a new index structure that attempts to resolve a search
strictly within the index and not bothering with pointers to the
database. Therefore (and again, this is from memory - I think there
was an article in DBMS I read about it) Rushmore may be of limited
use in SEEK situations. Its speed is seen in COUNTs, etc.

>>I seem to remember reading on this group that FoxPro needs a lot of
>>memory.
   A user I know has the full foxpro lan version (not the runtime)
running with a disk cache on - Ive come in under pcANYWHERE and
executed the runtime version of R&R report writer. Very fast performance
both in program execution and disk retrieval. Im not concerned with
memory, I think it manages pretty well. BTW this is foxpro 1.x
>
>You are right, although the difference is not very noticeable on a
>human-user level.
   You're right here. Users take it for granted - and they should.
Only we appreciate it - and maybe we shouldnt!
>
>>Do you think the Rushmore Technology is really revolutionary?
   One companies "revolutionary" is another companies "marketing
hype". IMO its just a faster method to use indexes (and as noted
above that may be only under certain circumstances). SO how could
that be "revolutionary"; "evolutionary" may be more correct. THis
whole "Rushmore Technology" thing is a bit much.

Mark