| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Petrilli <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ying Lu <ying_lu(at)cs(dot)concordia(dot)ca>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2005-05-09 15:34:57 |
| Message-ID: | 427F8321.5030702@samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
Christopher Petrilli wrote:
> This being the case, is there ever ANY reason for someone to use it?
Well, someone might fix it up at some point in the future. I don't think
there's anything fundamentally wrong with hash indexes, it is just that
the current implementation is a bit lacking.
> If not, then shouldn't we consider deprecating it and eventually
> removing it.
I would personally consider the code to be deprecated already.
I don't think there is much to be gained b removing it: the code is
pretty isolated from the rest of the tree, and (IMHO) not a significant
maintenance burden.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ben | 2005-05-09 15:37:16 | Re: Postgres and GnuPlot |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-05-09 15:28:23 | Re: Need input on postgres used for phpBB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John A Meinel | 2005-05-09 15:40:07 | Re: Whence the Opterons? |
| Previous Message | Anjan Dave | 2005-05-09 15:29:55 | Re: Whence the Opterons? |