> At 09:56 AM 6/28/02 -0400, Alexandre Kozlov wrote:
> >It looks like not perfect approach. I guess it would be better to escape
> >transformation for indices. C++ OOP should help it easier to design and
> I hate to be the one to break this to your, but nothing in life is
> Before you go off and spend a vast amount of time attempting to
> re-invent the wheel, you might to an analysis of the problem you're
> trying to eliminate.
> The existing mechanism is simple, robust, and correct for all
> intended operations. Index walking is almost always wrong --
> it does random, deoptimized access into the database page space,
> is a nightmare from a locking perspective, and is almost always
> much slower than the alternative.
> If somebody really cared about timestamp index precision, a better
> solution is to use a non-lossy transmogrification for 64 bit ints.
> (I do hope everyone understands that "transmogrification" isn't
> an actual English word but a reference to a beloved but extinct
> comic strip.)
> Jim Starkey
I used word transformation, but may be more correct word is conversion.
Yes you are right - nothing is perfect and I apologize for some sharpness.
The right form is 'might be better' or 'may be better' ...
But probably some things exist I do not know about.
Conversion itself is the thing which is inevitable.