| From: | Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jie Zhang <jzhang(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Hash indexes (was: On-disk bitmap index patch) |
| Date: | 2006-07-27 15:59:35 |
| Message-ID: | 8CF68FF7-22D6-4F05-A277-AE81F97A7DAB@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul 25, 2006, at 3:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
>> Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-07-25 kell 13:06, kirjutas Tom Lane:
>>> The reason I have such high sales resistance is that we've
>>> carried the
>>> hash and rtree AMs for years, hoping that someone would do the
>>> work to
>>> make them actually worth using, with little result.
>
>> What would be the use-case for hash indexes ? And what should be
>> done to
>> make them faster than btree ?
>
> If we knew, we'd do it ;-) But no one's put enough effort into it
> to find out.
Do they use the same hash algorithm as hash joins/aggregation? If so,
wouldn't hash indexes be faster for those operations than regular
indexes?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2006-07-27 16:04:16 | Re: GUC with units, details |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-07-27 15:57:41 | Re: GUC with units, details |