Re: Hash Indexes

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hash Indexes
Date: 2016-09-20 13:02:21
Message-ID: CAA4eK1+X=8sUd1UCZDZnE3D9CGi9kw+kjxp2Tnw7SX5w8pLBNw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I do want to work on it, but it is always possible that due to some
> other work this might get delayed. Also, I think there is always a
> chance that while doing that work, we face some problem due to which
> we might not be able to use that optimization. So I will go with your
> suggestion of removing hashscan.c and it's usage for now and then if
> required we will pull it back. If nobody else thinks otherwise, I
> will update this in next patch version.
>

In the attached patch, I have removed the support of hashscans. I
think it might improve performance by few percentage (especially for
single row fetch transactions) as we have registration and destroy of
hashscans.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
concurrent_hash_index_v8.patch application/octet-stream 109.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2016-09-20 13:24:03 Re: Parallel sec scan in plpgsql
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2016-09-20 12:52:23 Re: "Some tests to cover hash_index"