From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Xiao Meng <mx.cogito@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-patches@postgresql.org, "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: hash index improving v3
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 01:35:16 -0400
Message-ID: <14102.1220506516@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1220494002.4371.813.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
References: <ded849dd0808171846g2c6c65adub942bd2510a6c94f@mail.gmail.com>
<1220494002.4371.813.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> Right now it seems strange that the index is larger than a btree, yet
> the performance tests show that 3 times as much I/O was used accessing
> the btree.
Well, in an ideal world a hash index probe is O(1) while a btree probe
is O(log N), so that result is exactly what hash proponents would hope
for. Whether it's real or not is another question, but it could be.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, simon@2ndQuadrant.com, mx.cogito@gmail.com, jonah.harris@gmail.com
Subject: Re: hash index improving v3
In-Reply-To: <14102.1220506516@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox