News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Bloom filters are good for search that does not scale. Parent comment

Re:Bloom filters are good for search that does not scale by hinkley on Tuesday November 04, 2025 @02:01PM (#45814670)
Why do these “inverted indexes” just look like indexes to me? Too much time with databases perhaps?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bloom filters are good for search that does not scale by adamzwasserman on Tuesday November 04, 2025 @03:13PM (#45815382)
A non-unique index, yes.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bloom filters are good for search that does not scale by hinkley on Tuesday November 04, 2025 @03:31PM (#45815565)
Which is most indexes.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bloom filters are good for search that does not scale by adamzwasserman on Wednesday November 05, 2025 @12:16PM (#45825333)
again, I agree
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bloom filters are good for search that does not scale by farsa on Tuesday November 04, 2025 @06:37PM (#45817187)
The distinction is more clear when indexing actual text and applying tokenization. A "typical" index on a database column goes like "column(value => rows)". When people mention inverted indexes its usually in the context of full text search, where "column value" usually goes through tokenization and you build an index for all N tokens of a column "column:(token 1 => rows)", "column:(token 2 => rows)",... "column:(token N => rows)".
[ Parent | on HN ]