| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash Indexes |
| Date: | 2016-09-30 00:16:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20160930001627.w43esgtginm6iehc@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-09-29 20:14:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >> On 2016-09-28 15:04:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >>> Andres already
> >>> stated that he things working on btree-over-hash would be more
> >>> beneficial than fixing hash, but at this point it seems like he's the
> >>> only one who takes that position.
> >>
> >> Note that I did *NOT* take that position. I was saying that I think we
> >> should evaluate whether that's not a better approach, doing some simple
> >> performance comparisons.
> >
> > I, for one, agree with this position.
>
> Well, I, for one, find it frustrating. It seems pretty unhelpful to
> bring this up only after the code has already been written.
I brought this up in person at pgcon too.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-30 00:28:00 | Re: Hash Indexes |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-30 00:14:40 | Re: Hash Indexes |