Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage?

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 20:12:23
Message-ID: 200206212012.g5LKCNB14956@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Larry Rosenman wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 11:51, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> >
> > >
> > > > How about an elog(NOTICE) for hash use?
> > >
> > > I don't think that's appropriate.
> >
> > I was thinking of this during CREATE INDEX ... hash:
> >
> > NOTICE: Hash index use is discouraged. See the CREATE INDEX
> > reference page for more information.
> >
> > Does anyone else like/dislike that?
> I dislike it. Some clients/dba's will wonder why we even have them.
>
> Why should we bug the DBA on EVERY index that is a hash?
>
> I know I personally hate the FreeBSD linker warnings about certain
> functions, and don't like that precedent.

OK, that's enough of a negative vote for me. So you feel the
documentation change is enough? Tom thinks so too.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Larry Rosenman 2002-06-21 20:13:55 Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage?
Previous Message Larry Rosenman 2002-06-21 20:09:19 Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage?