From: | Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments |
Date: | 2013-10-29 14:53:37 |
Message-ID: | 1383058417.30027.YahooMailNeo@web172606.mail.ir2.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Before getting too excited about some new academic index type, it's worth
> noting the sad state in which hash indexes have languished for years.
> Nobody's bothered to add WAL support, let alone do any other real work
> on them. The non-btree index types that have been getting love are the
> ones that offer the ability to index queries that btree can't. I think
> a new index type whose only benefit is the claim to be faster in a narrow
> use-case is likely to end up like hash, not getting used enough to be
> properly maintained.
> regards, tom lane
Aren't hash indexes in a poor state because they are not faster than btree in every condition?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-10-29 15:05:48 | Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-29 14:47:58 | Re: logical changeset generation v6.2 |