From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Hash index todo list item |
Date: | 2007-09-07 06:56:25 |
Message-ID: | 1189148185.2231.27.camel@goldbach |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2007-02-09 at 13:04 -0500, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> 2. Evaluate the performance of different hash index implementations
> and/or changes to the current implementation. My current plan is
> to keep the implementation as simple as possible and still provide
> the desired performance. Several hash index suggestions deal with
> changing the layout of the keys on a page to improve lookup
> performance, including reducing the bucket size to a fraction of
> a page or only storing the hash value on the page, instead of
> the index value itself.
You might find this patch useful:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-05/msg00164.php
It implements the "just store the hash in the index" idea; it also sorts
the entries in a bucket by the hash value, which allows binary search to
be used to locate candidate matches.
I was surprised that this didn't result in a performance improvement for
the benchmarks that I ran, but I never got around to investigating
further (either running more benchmarks or checking whether there was a
bug in the implementation).
Unfortunately, the patch doesn't apply cleanly to HEAD, but I can merge
it up to HEAD if you'd like.
-Neil
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-09-07 07:36:14 | Re: Low hanging fruit in lazy-XID-assignment patch? |
Previous Message | Phil | 2007-09-07 06:44:26 | Installation problem and a question |