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 5EC8F531C6 for ; Tue, 10 May 2005 23:14:35 -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 13178-03 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 02:14:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mailbox.samurai.com (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8BCD53F76 for ; Tue, 10 May 2005 23:14:23 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82]) by mailbox.samurai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF4518CC36; Tue, 10 May 2005 22:14:28 -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 62563-01; Tue, 10 May 2005 22:14:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [61.88.101.19] (unknown [61.88.101.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailbox.samurai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8A6D18CC05; Tue, 10 May 2005 22:14:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <42816A7E.3080508@samurai.com> Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:14:22 +1000 From: Neil Conway User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050331) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Momjian Cc: Mischa Sandberg , pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL References: <200505110151.j4B1pnt16211@candle.pha.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <200505110151.j4B1pnt16211@candle.pha.pa.us> 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=0.024 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200505/533 X-Sequence-Number: 77881 Bruce Momjian wrote: > Is there a TODO anywhere in this discussion? If so, please let me know. There are a couple: - consider changing hash indexes to keep the entries in a hash bucket sorted, to allow a binary search rather than a linear scan - consider changing hash indexes to store each key's hash value in addition to or instead of the key value. You should probably include a pointer to this discussion as well. (I'd like to take a look at implementing these if I get a chance.) -Neil