Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 1:31 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: Tom Lane; Neil Conway; mloftis(at)wgops(dot)com;
> pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What is wrong with hashed index usage?
>
>
> Dann Corbit wrote:
> > > I was thinking of this during CREATE INDEX ... hash:
> > >
> > > NOTICE: Hash index use is discouraged. See the CREATE INDEX
> > > reference page for more information.
> > >
> > > Does anyone else like/dislike that?
> >
> > I think it might be OK temporarily, to show that there is
> some work that
> > needs done. When hashed indexes are fixed, the notice should be
> > removed.
>
> Oh, yes, clearly, we would remove it once we had a hash implementation
> that had _any_ advantages over btree.
>
> So, is you vote for or against the elog(NOTICE)?

I will defer to the preference of the others. I lean ever so slightly
towards the notice, because it is very unusual for hashed index not to
be faster for single item lookup.