From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Save Hash Indexes |
Date: | 2013-11-01 13:31:10 |
Message-ID: | m2bo242qqp.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Here's an idea: when a user ask for an Hash Index transparently build a
BTree index over an hash function instead.
Advantages:
- it works
- it's crash safe
- it's (much?) faster than a hash index anyways
Drawbacks:
- root access concurrency
- we need a hash_any function stable against pg_upgrade
After talking about it with Heikki, we don't seem to find ways in which
the root access concurrency pattern would be visible enough to matter.
Also, talking with Peter Geoghegan, it's unclear that there's a use case
where a hash index would be faster than a btree index over the hash
function.
Comments?
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-01 13:49:57 | Re: Save Hash Indexes |
Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2013-11-01 11:52:26 | Re: Shave a few instructions from child-process startup sequence |