| From: | "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "John Smith" <sodgodofall(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WAL logging of hash indexes |
| Date: | 2008-01-16 08:38:33 |
| Message-ID: | 9362e74e0801160038j4bbec4c8s24ae84a672f76b54@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> There is absolutely 0 value in tackling that until someone can fix
> hash's performance problems. If there is no real-world scenario for
> using it ... which there really isn't ... then adding WAL support
> still leaves you with no real-world scenario for using it.
>
> This is not to suggest that I wouldn't like to see all of that fixed;
> I would. But let's concentrate on the showstoppers first, rather than
> expending effort that might ultimately be a waste.
>
>
> I agree on that. I think working on Hash clusters would add more use-cases
than working on hash-indexes.
Thanks,
Gokul.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jens-Wolfhard Schicke | 2008-01-16 10:23:10 | Re: Array behavior oddities |
| Previous Message | Gokulakannan Somasundaram | 2008-01-16 08:34:26 | Re: Some ideas about Vacuum |