From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Hash index todo list item |
Date: | 2007-09-03 02:41:22 |
Message-ID: | 9163.1188787282@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> writes:
> ... This is the rough plan. Does anyone see anything critical that
> is missing at this point?
Sounds pretty good. Let me brain-dump one item on you: one thing that
hash currently has over btree is the ability to handle index items up
to a full page. Now, if you go with a scheme that only stores hash
codes and not the underlying data, you can not only handle that but
improve on it; but if you reduce the bucket size and don't remove the
data, it'd be a step backward. The idea I had about dealing with that
was to only reduce the size of primary buckets --- if it's necessary to
add overflow space to a bucket, the overflow units are still full pages.
So an index tuple up to a page in size can always be accommodated by
adding an overflow page to the bucket.
Just a thought, but AFAIR it's not in the archives anywhere.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Anoo Sivadasan Pillai | 2007-09-03 05:31:43 | FW: max_connections and shared_buffers |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2007-09-03 02:18:45 | Re: [HACKERS] \dF wrt text search |