| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash Indexes |
| Date: | 2016-09-28 19:07:46 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa0gyPSLA2px1uSfZQR9QW3zVVxP-Ls6TKW0vHFbu+fWA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2016-09-28 15:04:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Andres already
>> stated that he things working on btree-over-hash would be more
>> beneficial than fixing hash, but at this point it seems like he's the
>> only one who takes that position.
>
> Note that I did *NOT* take that position. I was saying that I think we
> should evaluate whether that's not a better approach, doing some simple
> performance comparisons.
OK, sorry. I evidently misunderstood your position, for which I apologize.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-09-28 19:17:46 | Re: Add support for restrictive RLS policies |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-09-28 19:06:45 | Re: Hash Indexes |