Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: hash index improving v3

From: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Xiao Meng" <mx(dot)cogito(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: hash index improving v3
Date: 2008-09-04 04:10:06
Message-ID: 36e682920809032110h41462f7ct6a0ac5716c5a9d64@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> It seems hash index is a little better on index creation and
>> selection.
>> But maybe  it's in the range of noise, I'm not sure.
>> I'd like to try it with a bigger dataset (e.g. table with 10GB) but
>> there is not enough space in my computer.
>> Anyone interest can make a test on a bigger data set.

I tried it earlier on a 500M row table and found a few bugs.  In
particular, it doesn't seem like recheck is happening and the
performance/sizing is a bit *interesting*.  I'll post stats tomorrow
when I'm in the office.

-- 
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-09-04 05:35:16
Subject: Re: hash index improving v3
Previous:From: Robert TreatDate: 2008-09-04 03:15:00
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-09-04 05:35:16
Subject: Re: hash index improving v3
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-09-04 02:06:42
Subject: Re: hash index improving v3

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group