| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it? |
| Date: | 2011-09-15 22:38:08 |
| Message-ID: | 13742.1316126288@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> HM, what if you junked the current hash indexam, and just implemented
> a wrapper over btree so that the 'hash index' was just short hand for
> hashing the value into a standard index?
Surely creating such a wrapper would be *more* work than adding WAL
support to the hash AM.
I'm not entirely following this eagerness to junk that AM, anyway.
We've put a lot of sweat into it over the years, in the hopes that
it would eventually be good for something. It's on the edge of
being good for something now, and there's doubtless room for more
improvements, so why are the knives out?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2011-09-16 00:34:04 | Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it? |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-09-15 22:14:42 | Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it? |