Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage?

We have documented current GiST interface but in russian.
http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/postgres/gist/doc/gist-inteface-r.shtml
We have no time to translate it to english :-)
I'd appreciate if somebody could help us in documentation -

Oleg
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > I hate to do that because it makes people think something special is
> > > happening for hash, but it isn't. We could throw an elog(NOTICE)
> > > stating that hash is not recommended and btree is faster, or something
> > > like that.
> >
> > I think the only action called for is some improvement in the
> > documentation. Right now the docs are not honest about the state
> > of any of the non-btree index methods. Ain't none of 'em ready
> > for prime time IMHO. GIST is the only one that's getting any
> > development attention --- and probably the only one that deserves
> > it, given limited resources. Hash offers no compelling advantage
> > over btree AFAICS, and rtree is likewise dominated by GIST (or would
> > be, if we shipped rtree-equivalent GIST opclasses in the standard
> > distribution).
> >
> > I do not like "throw an elog" as a substitute for documentation.
>
> OK, documentation changes for hash attached. Do we need to also throw
> a elog(WARNING) about its use? I don't think everyone is going to see
> these documentation changes, and I hate to add it to the FAQ.
>
>

Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83