From: Jim C. Nasby <decibel@decibel.org>
To: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Cc: Christopher Petrilli <petrilli@gmail.com>
Cc: Ying Lu <ying_lu@cs.concordia.ca>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 10:32:45 -0500
Message-ID: <20050510153245.GA31103@decibel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <427FFCD3.1010803@samurai.com>
References: <427F6853.90308@cs.concordia.ca>
<427F757A.8000407@samurai.com>
<59d991c405050908271b55e673@mail.gmail.com>
<427F8321.5030702@samurai.com>
<20050509163423.GH35026@decibel.org>
<427F9211.2090008@samurai.com>
<20050509165133.GJ35026@decibel.org>
<427FFCD3.1010803@samurai.com>
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 10:14:11AM +1000, Neil Conway wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> >> No, hash joins and hash indexes are unrelated.
> >I know they are now, but does that have to be the case?
>
> I mean, the algorithms are fundamentally unrelated. They share a bit of
> code such as the hash functions themselves, but they are really solving
> two different problems (disk based indexing with (hopefully) good
> concurrency and WAL logging vs. in-memory joins via hashing with spill
> to disk if needed).
Well, in a hash-join right now you normally end up feeding at least one
side of the join with a seqscan. Wouldn't it speed things up
considerably if you could look up hashes in the hash index instead? That
way you can eliminate going to the heap for any hashes that match. Of
course, if limited tuple visibility info was added to hash indexes
(similar to what I think is currently happening to B-tree's), many of
the heap scans could be eliminated as well. A similar method could also
be used for hash aggregates, assuming they use the same hash.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: decibel@decibel.org, neilc@samurai.com, petrilli@gmail.com, ying_lu@cs.concordia.ca, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL
In-Reply-To: <20050510153245.GA31103@decibel.org>
* 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