Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments

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?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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