Re: hash index improving v3

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Xiao Meng <mx(dot)cogito(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: hash index improving v3
Date: 2008-09-04 05:35:16
Message-ID: 14102.1220506516@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Right now it seems strange that the index is larger than a btree, yet
> the performance tests show that 3 times as much I/O was used accessing
> the btree.

Well, in an ideal world a hash index probe is O(1) while a btree probe
is O(log N), so that result is exactly what hash proponents would hope
for. Whether it's real or not is another question, but it could be.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2008-09-04 05:52:06 Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code
Previous Message Jonah H. Harris 2008-09-04 04:10:06 Re: hash index improving v3

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zdenek Kotala 2008-09-04 12:54:37 Re: hash index improving v3
Previous Message Jonah H. Harris 2008-09-04 04:10:06 Re: hash index improving v3