Index: doc/src/sgml/diskusage.sgml
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/diskusage.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -c -r1.1 diskusage.sgml
*** doc/src/sgml/diskusage.sgml	13 Jun 2002 05:15:22 -0000	1.1
--- doc/src/sgml/diskusage.sgml	21 Jun 2002 19:06:03 -0000
***************
*** 22,31 ****
    </para>
  
    <para>
!    You can monitor disk space from two places; from inside
!    <application>psql</> and from the command line using
!    <application>contrib/oid2name</>. Using <application>psql</> you can
!    issue queries to see the disk usage for any table:
  <programlisting>
  play=# SELECT relfilenode, relpages
  play-# FROM pg_class
--- 22,33 ----
    </para>
  
    <para>
!    You can monitor disk space from three places: from
!    <application>psql</> using <command>VACUUM</> information, from
!    <application>psql</> using <application>contrib/dbsize</>, and from
!    the command line using <application>contrib/oid2name</>. Using
!    <application>psql</> on a recently vacuumed (or analyzed) database,
!    you can issue queries to see the disk usage of any table:
  <programlisting>
  play=# SELECT relfilenode, relpages
  play-# FROM pg_class
***************
*** 38,47 ****
    </para>
  
    <para>   
!    Each page is typically 8 kilobytes. <literal>relpages</> is only
!    updated by <command>VACUUM</> and <command>ANALYZE</>. To show the
!    space used by <acronym>TOAST</> tables, use a query based on the heap
!    relfilenode:
  <programlisting>
  play=# SELECT relname, relpages
  play-# FROM pg_class
--- 40,49 ----
    </para>
  
    <para>   
!    Each page is typically 8 kilobytes. (Remember, <literal>relpages</>
!    is only updated by <command>VACUUM</> and <command>ANALYZE</>.) To
!    show the space used by <acronym>TOAST</> tables, use a query based on
!    the heap relfilenode shown above:
  <programlisting>
  play=# SELECT relname, relpages
  play-# FROM pg_class
Index: doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.33
diff -c -r1.33 indices.sgml
*** doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml	21 Jun 2002 16:52:00 -0000	1.33
--- doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml	21 Jun 2002 19:06:04 -0000
***************
*** 181,190 ****
  </synopsis>
     <note>
      <para>
!      Testing has shown hash indexes to be similar or slower than btree
!      indexes, and the index size and build time for hash indexes is much
!      worse. Hash indexes also suffer poor performance under high
!      concurrency. For these reasons, hash index use is discouraged.
      </para>
     </note>  
    </para>
--- 181,191 ----
  </synopsis>
     <note>
      <para>
!      Testing has shown PostgreSQL's hash indexes to be similar or slower
!      than btree indexes, and the index size and build time for hash
!      indexes is much worse. Hash indexes also suffer poor performance
!      under high concurrency. For these reasons, hash index use is
!      discouraged.
      </para>
     </note>  
    </para>
Index: doc/src/sgml/ref/create_index.sgml
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_index.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.33
diff -c -r1.33 create_index.sgml
*** doc/src/sgml/ref/create_index.sgml	21 Jun 2002 16:52:00 -0000	1.33
--- doc/src/sgml/ref/create_index.sgml	21 Jun 2002 19:06:05 -0000
***************
*** 330,339 ****
      the <literal>=</literal> operator.
     </para>
     <para>
!      Testing has shown hash indexes to be similar or slower than btree
!      indexes, and the index size and build time for hash indexes is much
!      worse. Hash indexes also suffer poor performance under high
!      concurrency. For these reasons, hash index use is discouraged.
     </para>
  
     <para>
--- 330,340 ----
      the <literal>=</literal> operator.
     </para>
     <para>
!      Testing has shown PostgreSQL's hash indexes to be similar or slower
!      than btree indexes, and the index size and build time for hash
!      indexes is much worse. Hash indexes also suffer poor performance
!      under high concurrency. For these reasons, hash index use is
!      discouraged.
     </para>
  
     <para>