Re: hash index improving v3

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Xiao Meng <mx(dot)cogito(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: hash index improving v3
Date: 2008-09-24 16:04:22
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Can we consider this hash thread closed/completed?


Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Thinks: Why not just sort all of the time and skip the debate entirely?
> The sort is demonstrably a loser for smaller indexes. Admittedly,
> if the index is small then the sort can't cost all that much, but if
> the (correct) threshold is some large fraction of shared_buffers then
> it could still take awhile on installations with lots-o-buffers.
> The other side of that coin is that it's not clear this is really worth
> arguing about, much less exposing a separate parameter for.
> regards, tom lane
> --
> Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua Drake 2008-09-24 16:04:29 Re: parallel pg_restore
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-09-24 15:58:58 Re: Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches (for CommitFest:Sep)

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2008-09-24 16:23:38 Re: hash index improving v3
Previous Message Hiroshi Saito 2008-09-24 14:55:18 Re: Solve a problem of LC_TIME of windows.