| From: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, mloftis(at)wgops(dot)com, DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage? |
| Date: | 2002-04-25 21:04:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20020425170444.604ae4af.nconway@klamath.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:38:00 -0400 (EDT)
"Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Nice report. I think we should start thinking of hiding the hash option
> from users, or warn them more forcefully, rather than hold it out as a
> possible option for them.
Why not do something Peter E. suggested earlier: if the functionality of
hash indexes is a subset of that offered by btrees, it might be good to
remove the hash index code and treat USING 'hash' as an alias for
USING 'btree'?
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-25 21:14:43 | Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage? |
| Previous Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2002-04-25 21:04:30 | Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction |