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

From: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it?
Date: 2011-09-14 00:04:36
Message-ID: CAEYLb_Udue8_XSE9K0KMqKBE_62yurv1bY4Wc+qJoGykZ_rXtA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 14 September 2011 00:04, Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Has this been verified on a recent release? I can't believe that hash
> performs so bad over all these points. Theory tells me otherwise and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_table seems to be a success.

Hash indexes have been improved since 2005 - their performance was
improved quite a bit in 9.0. Here's a more recent analysis:

http://www.depesz.com/index.php/2010/06/28/should-you-use-hash-index/

--
Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-09-14 00:24:30 Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it?
Previous Message Samuel Gendler 2011-09-13 23:27:26 Re: raid array seek performance