| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash Indexes |
| Date: | 2016-09-28 19:06:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20160928190645.vulbv6nz4chu226k@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-09-28 15:04:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Andres already
> stated that he things working on btree-over-hash would be more
> beneficial than fixing hash, but at this point it seems like he's the
> only one who takes that position.
Note that I did *NOT* take that position. I was saying that I think we
should evaluate whether that's not a better approach, doing some simple
performance comparisons.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-28 19:07:46 | Re: Hash Indexes |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-09-28 19:06:43 | Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol |