From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tomasz Ostrowski <tometzky+pg(at)ato(dot)waw(dot)pl>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Multicolumn hash indexes |
Date: | 2017-09-29 14:54:55 |
Message-ID: | 19865.1506696895@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Maybe you're worrying about something like a billion-row table where
> there are 3 columns that form a composite key: (1,1,1), (1,1,2), ...,
> (1,1000),(1,2,1),...,(1,1000,1000),(2,1,1),...,(1000,1000,1000). In
> that case, treating the leading column as most important will indeed
> be terrible, since we'll put all billion rows into 1000 buckets no
> matter how many bucket splits we do.
> That seems a little unusual, though.
There are few if any indexing techniques where the first column isn't
significantly more important than the rest --- certainly that's true
for btree, for example. I do not think it's a showstopper if that's
true for hash as well.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-09-29 15:10:09 | Re: bgw_type (was Re: Why does logical replication launcher set application_name?) |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2017-09-29 14:50:48 | Re: GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patch for hash index |