From: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
To: Ying Lu <ying_lu@cs.concordia.ca>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL 8.0)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 00:36:42 +1000
Message-ID: <427F757A.8000407@samurai.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <427F6853.90308@cs.concordia.ca>
References: <427F6853.90308@cs.concordia.ca>
Ying Lu wrote:
> May I know for simple "=" operation query, for "Hash index" vs. "B-tree"
> index, which can provide better performance please?
I don't think we've found a case in which the hash index code
outperforms B+-tree indexes, even for "=". The hash index code also has
a number of additional issues: for example, it isn't WAL safe, it has
relatively poor concurrency, and creating a hash index is significantly
slower than creating a b+-tree index.
-Neil
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: neilc@samurai.com, ying_lu@cs.concordia.ca, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL 8.0)
In-Reply-To: <427F757A.8000407@samurai.com>
* 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