Re: Hash indexes (was: On-disk bitmap index patch)

On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 01:46:01PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Jim Nasby wrote:
> > On Jul 25, 2006, at 3:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
>
> > >>What would be the use-case for hash indexes ? And what should be
> > >>done to make them faster than btree ?
> > >
> > >If we knew, we'd do it ;-) But no one's put enough effort into it
> > >to find out.
> >
> > Do they use the same hash algorithm as hash joins/aggregation? If so,
> > wouldn't hash indexes be faster for those operations than regular
> > indexes?
>
> The main problem doesn't seem to be in the hash algorithm (which I
> understand to mean the hashing function), but in the protocol for
> concurrent access of index pages, and the distribution of keys in pages
> of a single hash key.
>
> This is described in a README file or a code comment somewhere in the
> hash AM code. Someone needs to do some profiling to find out what the
> bottleneck really is, and ideally find a way to fix it.

What I'm getting at is that I've never seen any explanation for the
theoretical use cases where a hash index would outperform a btree. If we
knew what kind of problems hash indexes were supposed to solve, we could
try and interest people who are solving those kinds of problems in
fixing hash indexes.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461