| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Advocacy Group <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 10: Call for Quotes |
| Date: | 2017-09-01 20:23:46 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZgMUBcNou3RNAuGuAERTuZwNtVwdoRafvenh8zhxdOOw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Are we safe to draw attention to these indexes, for a particular use
> case? Can we get a clear statement of what that is? If we can, I would
> incline towards adding them to the major items list.
I think it's cases where the keys are very wide, only equality lookups
are needed, and the data isn't changing a ton. Write performance for
hash indexes is still not fantastic, although I believe that, due to
the single-page vacuuming logic in particular, it's a lot better than
formerly.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-09-01 21:20:33 | SVG graphics |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-09-01 06:23:40 | Re: PostgreSQL 10: Call for Quotes |