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

Re: [PERFORM] BUG #2737: hash indexing large tablefails,while

From: "Julius(dot)Stroffek" <Julius(dot)Stroffek(at)Sun(dot)COM>
To: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] BUG #2737: hash indexing large tablefails,while
Date: 2006-11-17 15:36:18
Message-ID: 455DD6F2.9070009@Sun.COM (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-performance
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Do we think there is hope of improving hash indexes?
I thought about this a bit. I have an idea that the hash index might 
have the fixed number of buckets specified in create index statement and 
the tuples in each of these buckets should be stored in a b-tree. This 
should give a constant performance improvement (but based on the number 
of buckets) for each fetch of a tuple from index compared to a fetch 
from b-tree index.

cheers

Julo



In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Jeff FrostDate: 2006-11-17 17:45:42
Subject: availability of SATA vendors
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-11-17 15:08:47
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] BUG #2737: hash indexing large tablefails,while btree of same index works

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: carlosDate: 2006-11-17 15:47:56
Subject: BUG #2763: fat
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-11-17 15:08:47
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] BUG #2737: hash indexing large tablefails,while btree of same index works

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