| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
| 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: | 2002-04-26 02:25:06 |
| Message-ID: | 200204260225.g3Q2P6011728@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway wrote:
> 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'?
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.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2002-04-26 02:27:17 | Re: Sequential Scan Read-Ahead |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-26 02:22:22 | Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction |