| From: | Christopher Petrilli <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ying Lu <ying_lu(at)cs(dot)concordia(dot)ca>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL 8.0) |
| Date: | 2005-05-09 15:27:54 |
| Message-ID: | 59d991c405050908271b55e673@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
On 5/9/05, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't think we've found a case in which the hash index code
> outperforms B+-tree indexes, even for "=". The hash index code also has
> a number of additional issues: for example, it isn't WAL safe, it has
> relatively poor concurrency, and creating a hash index is significantly
> slower than creating a b+-tree index.
This being the case, is there ever ANY reason for someone to use it?
If not, then shouldn't we consider deprecating it and eventually
removing it. This would reduce complexity, I think.
Chris
--
| Christopher Petrilli
| petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-05-09 15:28:23 | Re: Need input on postgres used for phpBB |
| Previous Message | Mila Boldareva | 2005-05-09 15:19:34 | Re: Postgres and GnuPlot |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anjan Dave | 2005-05-09 15:29:55 | Re: Whence the Opterons? |
| Previous Message | John A Meinel | 2005-05-09 15:22:03 | Re: Whence the Opterons? |