Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage?

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I hate to do that because it makes people think something special is
> > happening for hash, but it isn't. We could throw an elog(NOTICE)
> > stating that hash is not recommended and btree is faster, or something
> > like that.
>
> I think the only action called for is some improvement in the
> documentation. Right now the docs are not honest about the state
> of any of the non-btree index methods. Ain't none of 'em ready
> for prime time IMHO. GIST is the only one that's getting any
> development attention --- and probably the only one that deserves
> it, given limited resources. Hash offers no compelling advantage
> over btree AFAICS, and rtree is likewise dominated by GIST (or would
> be, if we shipped rtree-equivalent GIST opclasses in the standard
> distribution).
>
> I do not like "throw an elog" as a substitute for documentation.

OK, documentation changes for hash attached. Do we need to also throw
a elog(WARNING) about its use? I don't think everyone is going to see
these documentation changes, and I hate to add it to the FAQ.

--
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