Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1syyEW-003M5G-Nm for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:49:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1syyEV-005HKN-RM for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:49:56 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1syyEV-005HI0-G0 for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:49:55 +0000 Received: from mail-vk1-xa30.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::a30]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1syyET-000FJg-6X for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:49:54 +0000 Received: by mail-vk1-xa30.google.com with SMTP id 71dfb90a1353d-50c8330c69fso699666e0c.0 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2024 11:49:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1728586192; x=1729190992; darn=lists.postgresql.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=JkBp2wyEnNIfu+laJcrDOpEbCjS2NL+rAp7kXCXklTw=; b=g9GV2s1un4UguqKhqO4mJNepBueE+Ck2mpjFmtdoRpk7udP2dxB+s5byafcf8TwraB SfbvSnz3dkHuZTVyEIjuKQtqIw6WdIRD26GGEOwYtfN4UPpIBdzpEKxNy2qP9GNsAlEx a8mKw8KR5UgjET9jOA74TdmRUuU7Z3m3JN22LYfUfpGgXdEdcGCPoR+VR8PFJ1IbYrSK blmHFUJB3OL503HxpJXMG3rPakkDqcvguR7Ov2pr5K6SV2n52Ycj5dJmjeaqcnQ90MxL 7DIN3XxpR0O1jJ1KbfJUwrl9dCvrNlom2mzlGGzd5zHXCc1k6dvqnHbAkyRXPwhCKwfa P33Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1728586192; x=1729190992; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=JkBp2wyEnNIfu+laJcrDOpEbCjS2NL+rAp7kXCXklTw=; b=ZtNEYATZfsWtAha1JKroYhFSWUV0bAMkzxI4krKMgRGmjMsdL0fejP5/wrTexwIDqr 76TnMaVwJt9ttVgNvkJa/ooQTYIvp476wJEIfvGRL5IjnApS4/bCFmDOlcqfVIkprFJI 1yRkHoqQqMiQASVeIs2JRXF4X2qiLrNRW+DPSr5f33TABAO4NrmMU+KZGCQw/baPKsGL AF4m/shtOHu1YjPYFmrtxPDUmBGwFL4tZ+v6sxUBLaYzZrcb9ZKLbVJAKymoK4Lb3oom ecd/LJ/UP7UGx1J3pfSE6M95VoO/DB70Xb+uB/6FuXj5CCP3H3nWnlCY5YFO6uabMGf1 87mg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyTEknJ2ok88ygdCfBGoQ95JNV+bJYIoSCXfz7AWqEmOQkQQRmK 38txKgBo/eW2mwhBrg+y9GyMeJqR4MA33Je4wZ/6GzYITnJkDjjkgaW+ipesMWE5XVenCZA6iOi KddoHCdxqTDPT/NAMiMW8xYR2xvzdB34L X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGR4LB1VOVel4VaNk5XHWWwgWsdZcvrE/FZnudZHpXBaqj+imJ2ndETFJkML2cV574jlET2nq5tLuLaTCWSYpU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:884:b0:50a:cbdb:b929 with SMTP id 71dfb90a1353d-50d1b8962acmr224980e0c.2.1728586192050; Thu, 10 Oct 2024 11:49:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: sud Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 00:19:39 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Question on indexes To: pgsql-general Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f0e884062423d5fe" List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk --000000000000f0e884062423d5fe Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, I have never used any 'hash index' but saw documents in the past suggesting issues around hash index , like WAL doesnt generate for "hash index" which means we can't get the hash index back after crash also they are not applied to replicas etc. And also these indexes can not be used for range queries , for sorting etc. However, we are seeing that one of the databases has multiple hash indexes created. So I wanted to understand from experts here, if it's advisable in any specific scenarios over B-tre despite such downsides? Note- Its version 15.4 database. Regards Sud --000000000000f0e884062423d5fe Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
I have never used any 'hash index' but saw= documents in the past suggesting issues around hash index , like WAL doesn= t generate for "hash index" which means we can't get the hash= index back after crash also they are not applied to replicas etc. And also= these indexes can not be used for range queries , for sorting etc.

= However, we are seeing that one of the databases has multiple hash indexes = created. So I wanted to understand from experts here, if it's advisable= in any specific scenarios over B-tre despite such downsides?
Not= e- Its version 15.4 database.

Regards
Sud
--000000000000f0e884062423d5fe--