Re: [GENERAL] hash taboo?

From: admin <admin(at)wtbwts(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] hash taboo?
Date: 1999-12-17 22:54:22
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.10.9912172250001.8458-100000@server.b0x.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Excellent point, your last comment gives me a tangible incentive for using
hash instead of btree. Since I don't need to use other operators than '=',
there is really no need to spend extra time creating a btree while all I
need is a hash table. In the end, both are as fast for searching, but I
gain some additional speed for inserting and removing entries.

> > My results were exactly the same for btree and hash, even when vacumming
> > between each index creation. Here's my query:
> > SELECT * FROM prod_base WHERE mid='2';
> >
> > Here's my result:
> > Index Scan using prod_mid_idx on prod_base (cost=2.05 rows=2 width=120)
> >
> > My database is perhaps not big enough to run some relevant tests, so
> > please let me know if there's another way I could get a better idea of the
> > resources used for using each searching method.
>
> You have to look at index creation speed and index access speed.
>
> Not sure which one wins in each category. Also, index modification
> speed may be important.

Thanks again,
Marc

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Culberson, Philip 1999-12-17 23:03:14 RE: [GENERAL] How to get timestamped pgsql logging?
Previous Message admin 1999-12-17 22:41:58 Re: [GENERAL] hash taboo?