Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: hash index work

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: hash index work
Date: 2005-05-28 13:14:38
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Neil, I have added these item to the TODO list.  Do you plan on applying
> this?

No, I don't have any immediate plans to apply it, as unfortunately I 
didn't see a performance win :-( It's also possible I'm just not 
measuring the right workload, although I don't have time to rerun the 
benchmarks at the moment.

The patch does two things: (1) change hash indexes to only store the 
key's hash value, not the entire key (2) store index elements within a 
hash bucket in order of hash key and search for matches via binary 
search. #1 is definitely a win in some in some circumstances (e.g. 
indexing large fields or types with expensive equality operators), but 
those aren't the common case. I'm surprised that #2 is not a more 
noticeable improvement...

One possibility would be to provide an optional implementation of #1, 
perhaps via an alternate index operator class. That way people could 
select it in those situations in which it is worth using.


In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Robert TreatDate: 2005-05-28 14:23:37
Subject: Re: psql backslash consistency
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-05-28 04:14:18
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Fix PID file location?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group