Received: from localhost (pluto.hub.org [200.46.204.4]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838149F9CF9; Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:36:56 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.4]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27598-06; Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:36:47 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from svr4.postgresql.org (svr4.postgresql.org [66.98.251.159]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A365C9F9AD7; Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:36:52 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.3 X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.3 Received: from gmp-ea-fw-1.sun.com (gmp-ea-fw-1.sun.com [192.18.1.36]) by svr4.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAFC25AF896; Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:36:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d1-emea-09.sun.com ([192.18.2.119]) by gmp-ea-fw-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id kAHFakB4017505; Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:36:46 GMT Received: from conversion-daemon.d1-emea-09.sun.com by d1-emea-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) id <0J8V00601SJXPM00@d1-emea-09.sun.com> (original mail from Julius.Stroffek@Sun.COM); Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:36:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [129.159.112.151] by d1-emea-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <0J8V00MQKSOW0550@d1-emea-09.sun.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:36:33 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:36:18 +0100 From: "Julius.Stroffek" Subject: Re: [PERFORM] BUG #2737: hash indexing large tablefails,while In-reply-to: <1163761151.27956.592.camel@silverbirch.site> To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-id: <455DD6F2.9070009@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <200611051347.kA5DlVCk032222@wwwmaster.postgresql.org> <7530.1163202951@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1163233075.3634.944.camel@silverbirch.site> <1884.1163717296@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1163761151.27956.592.camel@silverbirch.site> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060911) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200611/121 X-Sequence-Number: 16256 Simon Riggs wrote: > Do we think there is hope of improving hash indexes? I thought about this a bit. I have an idea that the hash index might have the fixed number of buckets specified in create index statement and the tuples in each of these buckets should be stored in a b-tree. This should give a constant performance improvement (but based on the number of buckets) for each fetch of a tuple from index compared to a fetch from b-tree index. cheers Julo