On 09/16/2016 03:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Attached is a run with 1000 rows.
>>
>
> I think 1000 is also less, you probably want to run it for 100,000 or
> more rows. I suspect that the reason why you are seeing the large
> difference between btree and hash index is that the range of values is
> narrow and there may be many overflow pages.
>
Attached is 100,000.
>> I think for CHI is would be Robert's and others feedback. For WAL, there is
>> [1].
>>
>
> I have fixed your feedback for WAL and posted the patch.
Thanks !
> I think the
> remaining thing to handle for Concurrent Hash Index patch is to remove
> the usage of hashscan.c from code if no one objects to it, do let me
> know if I am missing something here.
>
Like Robert said, hashscan.c can always come back, and it would take a
call-stack out of the 'am' methods.
Best regards,
Jesper
