| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Xiao Meng" <mx(dot)cogito(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: hash index improving v3 |
| Date: | 2008-09-04 04:10:06 |
| Message-ID: | 36e682920809032110h41462f7ct6a0ac5716c5a9d64@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> It seems hash index is a little better on index creation and
>> selection.
>> But maybe it's in the range of noise, I'm not sure.
>> I'd like to try it with a bigger dataset (e.g. table with 10GB) but
>> there is not enough space in my computer.
>> Anyone interest can make a test on a bigger data set.
I tried it earlier on a 500M row table and found a few bugs. In
particular, it doesn't seem like recheck is happening and the
performance/sizing is a bit *interesting*. I'll post stats tomorrow
when I'm in the office.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-04 05:35:16 | Re: hash index improving v3 |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2008-09-04 03:15:00 | Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-04 05:35:16 | Re: hash index improving v3 |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-09-04 02:06:42 | Re: hash index improving v3 |