From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, mloftis(at)wgops(dot)com, DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage? |
Date: | 2002-06-21 13:25:38 |
Message-ID: | 18837.1024665938@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> <para>
> ! Because of the limited utility of hash indexes, a B-tree index
> ! should generally be preferred over a hash index. We do not have
> ! sufficient evidence that hash indexes are actually faster than
> ! B-trees even for <literal>=</literal> comparisons. Moreover,
> ! hash indexes require coarser locks; see <xref
> ! linkend="locking-indexes">.
> </para>
> </note>
> </para>
> --- 181,189 ----
> </synopsis>
> <note>
> <para>
> ! Testing has shown that hash indexes are slower than btree indexes,
> ! and the size and build time for hash indexes is much worse. For
> ! these reasons, hash index use is discouraged.
This change strikes me as a step backwards. The existing wording tells
the truth; the proposed revision removes the facts in favor of a blanket
assertion that is demonstrably false.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-06-21 13:32:19 | Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-06-21 13:22:14 | Re: Reduce heap tuple header size |