Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage?

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 14:47:20
Message-ID: 19635.1024670840@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:
> OK, which part of is "demonstrably false"? I think the old "should
> generally be preferred" is too vague. No one has come up with a case
> where hash has shown to be faster, and a lot of cases where it is slower.

The only thing I recall being lots worse is initial index build.

I have not tested it much, but I would expect that hash holds up better
in the presence of many equal keys than btree does...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-06-21 14:50:00 Re: ADTs and embedded sql
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-06-21 14:25:32 Re: Reduce heap tuple header size