| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Yuri Levinsky <yuril(at)celltick(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Mailing Lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash partitioning. |
| Date: | 2013-06-26 14:14:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20130626141420.GC3341@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 05:10:00PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> In practice, there might be a lot of quirks and inefficiencies and
> locking contention etc. involved in various DBMS's, that you might
> be able to work around with hash partitioning. But from a
> theoretical point of view, there is no reason to expect just
> partitioning a table on a hash to make key-value lookups any faster.
Good analysis. Has anyone benchmarked this to know our btree is
efficient in this area?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yuri Levinsky | 2013-06-26 14:22:07 | Re: Hash partitioning. |
| Previous Message | Yuri Levinsky | 2013-06-26 14:10:35 | Re: Hash partitioning. |