From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | srn(at)commsecure(dot)com(dot)au |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Mark Greenaway <mark(at)commsecure(dot)com(dot)au> |
Subject: | Re: USING HASH considered harmful? |
Date: | 2001-08-17 02:50:06 |
Message-ID: | 200108170250.f7H2o7t04604@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> > > I guess this is because PG really has to lock the hash table entry in
> > > both cases. It does, however, make HASH indices completely useless for
> > > any table that you might want to update.
> > >
> > > Is this a known feature?
> >
> > Yes, I have heard about this problem. Would you test btree vs hash and
> > report back which is faster. I have requested this from >20 people and
> > no one reported back.
>
> I changed to hash because it was marginally faster for the queries
> we were doing - maybe 5% or so. It was very marginal, but we
> need every bit of performance we can get.
Thanks. Very valuable information. It tells us that it may be worth
trying to optimize it someday.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(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 | William D. Tallman | 2001-08-17 03:09:59 | Real newbie question. |
Previous Message | Stephen Robert Norris | 2001-08-17 02:45:28 | Re: USING HASH considered harmful? |