| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Oskari Saarenmaa <os(at)ohmu(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash Indexes |
| Date: | 2016-09-25 05:18:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LtVC6T8_Lr1Pbe2nhvdUzVQKxaKWhP6+vJjckoo5DtGw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> But to kick the hash AM as such to the curb is to say
>> "sorry, there will never be O(1) index lookups in Postgres".
>
> Well there's plenty of halfway solutions for that. We could move hash
> indexes to contrib or even have them in core as experimental_hash or
> unlogged_hash until the day they achieve their potential.
>
> We definitely shouldn't discourage people from working on hash indexes
>
Okay, but to me it appears that naming it as experimental_hash or
moving it to contrib could discourage people or at the very least
people will be less motivated. Thinking on those lines a year or so
back would have been a wise direction, but now when already there is
lot of work done (patches to make it wal-enabled, more concurrent and
performant, page inspect module are available) for hash indexes and
still more is in progress, that sounds like a step backward then step
forward.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-09-25 05:25:57 | Re: Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2016-09-25 05:16:39 | Re: ICU integration |