| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | AP <ap(at)zip(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql 10: hash indexes testing |
| Date: | 2017-08-11 02:05:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JvZD5uSqjq2zPaJXBa-g+8XfJJkkc2i=dqHtrhVRoT2Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:01 AM, AP <ap(at)zip(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:12:25PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 6:41 AM, AP <ap(at)zip(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
>> > The index is 135GB rather than 900GB (from memory/give or take).
>>
>> Whoa. Big improvement.
>
>
> As an aside, btree for the above is around 2.5x bigger than hash v4 so
> chances are much better that a hash index will fit into ram which has
> its own benefits. :)
>
Yeah, that's exactly one of the benefit hash indexes can provide over
btree indexes.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2017-08-11 02:10:07 | Re: intermittent failures in Cygwin from select_parallel tests |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-08-11 02:03:51 | Re: pgsql 10: hash indexes testing |