From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | sud <suds1434(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Question on indexes |
Date: | 2024-10-11 06:43:37 |
Message-ID: | f8624649dc10bcb5a908f3054b6377e8573ffc12.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 2024-10-11 at 00:19 +0530, sud wrote:
> I have never used any 'hash index' but saw documents in the past suggesting issues
> around hash index , like WAL doesnt generate for "hash index" which means we can't
> get the hash index back after crash also they are not applied to replicas etc.
> And also these indexes can not be used for range queries , for sorting etc.
>
> However, we are seeing that one of the databases has multiple hash indexes created.
> So I wanted to understand from experts here, if it's advisable in any specific
> scenarios over B-tre despite such downsides?
> Note- Its version 15.4 database.
It is safe to use them, but in my tests I didn't find a realistic case where the were
better than a B-tree index:
https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com/en/postgresql-hash-index-performance/
Keep them if they do the trick for you, but I'd use B-tree indexes instead.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thürmann | 2024-10-11 08:23:20 | Connection between PostgreSQL and SAP HANA database |
Previous Message | Efrain J. Berdecia | 2024-10-11 01:17:54 | Re: Question on indexes |