| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jie Zhang <jzhang(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: On-disk bitmap index patch |
| Date: | 2006-07-25 20:31:53 |
| Message-ID: | 24222.1153859513@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
> hel kenal peval, T, 2006-07-25 kell 13:06, kirjutas Tom Lane:
>> The reason I have such high sales resistance is that we've carried the
>> hash and rtree AMs for years, hoping that someone would do the work to
>> make them actually worth using, with little result.
> 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.
> and was'nt the rtree index recently deprecated in favour of GIST
> implementation of the same ?
Yeah, we finally gave up on rtree entirely. I don't want to see any
other index AMs languishing in the closet like that. If bitmap can
hold its own to the extent that people are interested in working on
it/improving it, then great, but I'm worried that it's not going to
have a wide enough use-case to attract maintainers.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2006-07-25 20:39:11 | Re: On-disk bitmap index patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-25 20:24:58 | Re: status of yet another timezone todo item |