X-Original-To: pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038FA52A3D;
	Mon,  9 May 2005 12:35:18 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 38689-02; Mon,  9 May 2005 15:35:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mailbox.samurai.com (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22A96535A5;
	Mon,  9 May 2005 12:35:08 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from localhost (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82])
	by mailbox.samurai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3128E18CD50;
	Mon,  9 May 2005 11:35:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailbox.samurai.com ([205.207.28.82])
	by localhost (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82]) (amavisd-new,
	port 10024)
	with LMTP id 83359-01; Mon,  9 May 2005 11:35:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.3] (r220-101-4-60.cpe.unwired.net.au [220.101.4.60])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mailbox.samurai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD42018CC6E;
	Mon,  9 May 2005 11:35:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <427F8321.5030702@samurai.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 01:34:57 +1000
From: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christopher Petrilli <petrilli@gmail.com>
Cc: Ying Lu <ying_lu@cs.concordia.ca>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL
References: <427F6853.90308@cs.concordia.ca> <427F757A.8000407@samurai.com>
	<59d991c405050908271b55e673@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <59d991c405050908271b55e673@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mailbox.samurai.com
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.008 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200505/382
X-Sequence-Number: 77730

Christopher Petrilli wrote:
> This being the case, is there ever ANY reason for someone to use it?

Well, someone might fix it up at some point in the future. I don't think 
there's anything fundamentally wrong with hash indexes, it is just that 
the current implementation is a bit lacking.

> If not, then shouldn't we consider deprecating it and eventually
> removing it.

I would personally consider the code to be deprecated already.

I don't think there is much to be gained b removing it: the code is 
pretty isolated from the rest of the tree, and (IMHO) not a significant 
maintenance burden.

-Neil