| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | admin <admin(at)wtbwts(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] hash taboo? |
| Date: | 1999-12-18 03:56:03 |
| Message-ID: | 199912180356.WAA06915@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> Excellent point, your last comment gives me a tangible incentive for using
> hash instead of btree. Since I don't need to use other operators than '=',
> there is really no need to spend extra time creating a btree while all I
> need is a hash table. In the end, both are as fast for searching, but I
> gain some additional speed for inserting and removing entries.
Is the hash faster to create?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ed Loehr | 1999-12-18 04:45:12 | Re: [GENERAL] query buffer max length of 16384 exceeded |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-12-18 03:46:14 | Re: [GENERAL] hash taboo? |