From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Xiao Meng <mx(dot)cogito(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: hash index improving v3 |
Date: | 2008-09-04 02:06:42 |
Message-ID: | 1220494002.4371.813.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 09:46 +0800, Xiao Meng wrote:
> There's minor change against the previous
> one( http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-07/msg01183.php ).
> * merge branch master(Aug 16) into the patch
> * clean code and make some comment
> Performance result is here
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Gsoc08-hashindex
>
> It seems hash index is a little better on index creation and
> selection.
> But maybe it's in the range of noise, I'm not sure.
> I'd like to try it with a bigger dataset (e.g. table with 10GB) but
> there is not enough space in my computer.
> Anyone interest can make a test on a bigger data set.
You don't give the text of the query used to do these performance tests,
so I can't validate your test results.
Right now it seems strange that the index is larger than a btree, yet
the performance tests show that 3 times as much I/O was used accessing
the btree.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-09-04 02:28:05 | Re: Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-09-04 01:41:09 | Re: New FSM patch |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2008-09-04 04:10:06 | Re: hash index improving v3 |
Previous Message | Abhijit Menon-Sen | 2008-09-04 01:31:26 | still alive? |