| 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 15:47:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20186.1024674437@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:
> I remember three problems: build time, index size, and concurrency
> problems. I was wondering about the equal key case myself, and assumed
> hash may be a win there, but with the concurrency problems, is that even
> possible?
Sure. Many-equal-keys are a problem for btree whether you have any
concurrency or not.
> OK, I have reworded it. Is that better?
It's better, but you've still discarded the original's explicit mention
of concurrency problems. Why do you want to remove information?
> How about an elog(NOTICE) for hash use?
I don't think that's appropriate.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-06-21 16:06:52 | Problems with dump /restore of views |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-06-21 15:39:45 | Re: Reduce heap tuple header size |