| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Gene Selkov, Jr(dot)" <selkovjr(at)xnet(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: HASH: Out of overflow pages. Out of luck |
| Date: | 2002-08-05 02:36:57 |
| Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOEEHPCDAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I saw Tom answer a similar question a year ago, by saying that the
> hash access method is poorly supported and that there is no advantage
> to using it. I am not sure about the former, but the latter is not
> entirely true: we saw at least 20% gain in performance when we
> switched from btree to hash, and my boss considers 20% a big enough
> improvement. Besides, he knows the database theory and he is a
> long-time BerkelyDB user, and in his world, hash is greatly superior
> to btree, so he is wondering why are the postgres implementations so
> close. Besides, it's a tough challenge to explain it to a Libertarian
> that he'd better not do something.
>
> I guess we can make such people happy by either fixing hash, or by
> making btree very much worse -- whichever is easier :)
Cool. I'm sure that making btree much worse is definitely within my
ability - I'll submit a patch shortly with new pg_bench results.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-05 02:58:47 | Re: anonymous composite types for Table Functions (aka SRFs) |
| Previous Message | Gene Selkov, Jr. | 2002-08-05 02:26:16 | HASH: Out of overflow pages. Out of luck |