| From: | Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it? |
| Date: | 2011-09-16 23:15:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAFcOn2_T1iP=VyGL4Cn-wW0zN-CoS+zjjiSK_QUVj8tarM2DKQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
2011/9/16 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> I'm not entirely following this eagerness to junk that AM, anyway.
> We've put a lot of sweat into it over the years, in the hopes that
> it would eventually be good for something. It's on the edge of
> being good for something now, and there's doubtless room for more
> improvements, so why are the knives out?
No knives from my side. Sorry for the exaggerated subject title.
I'm also in favor for an enhanced hash index for cases where only "="
tests are processed and where only few inserts/deletes will occur.
Stefan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2011-09-17 01:04:47 | Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it? |
| Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2011-09-16 14:50:40 | Odd misprediction |