Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>> No, hash joins and hash indexes are unrelated.
> I know they are now, but does that have to be the case?
I mean, the algorithms are fundamentally unrelated. They share a bit of
code such as the hash functions themselves, but they are really solving
two different problems (disk based indexing with (hopefully) good
concurrency and WAL logging vs. in-memory joins via hashing with spill
to disk if needed).
> Like I said, I don't know the history, so I don't know why we even
> have them to begin with.
As I said, the idea of using hash indexes for better performance on
equality scans is perfectly valid, it is just the implementation that
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Matt Olson||Date: 2005-05-10 02:10:26|
|Previous:||From: David Roussel||Date: 2005-05-09 22:38:47|
|Subject: Re: "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL 8.0)|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Christopher Murtagh||Date: 2005-05-10 01:07:40|
|Subject: Re: Trigger that spawns forked process|
|Previous:||From: Ragnar Hafstað||Date: 2005-05-09 23:34:40|
|Subject: Re: backup compress...blobs/insert commands/verbose|