Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FF0CB5DC35 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 22:06:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 64240-05 for ; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 01:05:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0-rc2 Received: from mail.gransy.com (mail.gransy.com [82.208.29.194]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF862B5DC3D for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 22:05:55 -0300 (ADT) Received: from antispam.gransy.com (antispam.gransy.com [77.78.104.124]) by mail.gransy.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61EA84A200C for ; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 03:05:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.gransy.com ([82.208.29.194]) by antispam.gransy.com (antispam.gransy.com [77.78.104.124]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id stkqkbxiA8y1 for ; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 03:05:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.227] (ip-78-45-133-255.net.upcbroadband.cz [78.45.133.255]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.gransy.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3BD3E4A2006 for ; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 03:05:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E73F22F.9@fuzzy.cz> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 03:04:47 +0200 From: Tomas Vondra User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it? References: <16096.1315959870@sss.pgh.pa.us> <8905.1316043618@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <8905.1316043618@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201109/235 X-Sequence-Number: 45011 Dne 15.9.2011 01:40, Tom Lane napsal(a): > Stefan Keller writes: >> 2011/9/14 Tom Lane writes: >>> (...) I think that >>> the current state of affairs is still what depesz said, namely that >>> there might be cases where they'd be a win to use, except the lack of >>> WAL support is a killer. I imagine somebody will step up and do that >>> eventually. > >> How much of work (in man days) do you estimate would this mean for >> someone who can program but has to learn PG internals first? > > No idea ... I'm probably not the best person to estimate how long it > would take someone to get up to speed on the relevant internals, > but I'm sure that would take longer than actually doing the work. > While it's not a trivial task, I think it fits the definition of > "a small matter of programming": a piece of code whose anticipated > length is significantly greater than its complexity. We've been asked by a local university for PostgreSQL-related topics of theses and seminary works, so I'm wondering if adding WAL support to hash indexes would be a good fit ... Can anyone estimate if a student with reasonable C-knowledge a can implement this in about 4 months? It seems like a reasonable amount of research and work to me. Tomas PS: All interesting thesis ideas are welcome.