Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it?

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it?
Date: 2011-09-14 09:03:58
Message-ID: 4E706DFE.40801@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 14.09.2011 03:24, Tom Lane wrote:
> The big picture though is that we're not going to remove hash indexes,
> even if they're nearly useless in themselves, because hash index
> opclasses provide the foundation for the system's knowledge of how to
> do the datatype-specific hashing needed for hash joins and hash
> aggregation. And those things *are* big wins, even if hash indexes
> themselves never become so.

We could drop the hash indexam code but keep the opclasses etc. I'm not
sure that would gain us, though.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Leonardo Francalanci 2011-09-14 09:43:27 Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it?
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2011-09-14 08:58:59 Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it?