| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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 00:14:40 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobm0RQ+z5GWBXjwFSecVRhEWFT8_GktLn9vyzBKe-fCfw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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. The first
post on this thread was on May 10th. The first version of the patch
was posted on June 16th. This position was first articulated on
September 15th.
But, by all means, please feel free to do the performance comparison
and post the results. I'd be curious to see them myself.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-09-30 00:16:27 | Re: Hash Indexes |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-30 00:10:40 | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |