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: "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: 2008-09-23 13:13:14
Message-ID: 26331.1222175594@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:
> 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2008-09-23 13:16:02 Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-09-23 13:05:15 Re: hash index improving v3

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2008-09-23 13:27:02 Re: hash index improving v3
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-09-23 13:05:15 Re: hash index improving v3