Re: USING HASH considered harmful?

From: Stephen Robert Norris <srn(at)commsecure(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 02:45:28
Message-ID: 20010817124528.E28987@ws12.commsecure.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 09:59:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE
> -- Start of PGP signed section.
> > We've just discovered a rather nasty feature of hashes, namely that
> > simultaneous reads & writes to a single row will deadlock if there
> > is a hash index on the table.
> >
> > 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.

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-08-17 02:50:06 Re: USING HASH considered harmful?
Previous Message Hiroshi Inoue 2001-08-17 02:42:36 Re: Perfomance decreasing