From: Christopher Petrilli <petrilli@gmail.com>
To: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Cc: Ying Lu <ying_lu@cs.concordia.ca>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL 8.0)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 11:27:54 -0400
Message-ID: <59d991c405050908271b55e673@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <427F757A.8000407@samurai.com>
References: <427F6853.90308@cs.concordia.ca>
<427F757A.8000407@samurai.com>
On 5/9/05, Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> wrote:
> 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.
This being the case, is there ever ANY reason for someone to use it?
If not, then shouldn't we consider deprecating it and eventually
removing it. This would reduce complexity, I think.
Chris
--
| Christopher Petrilli
| petrilli@gmail.com
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: petrilli@gmail.com, neilc@samurai.com, ying_lu@cs.concordia.ca, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL 8.0)
In-Reply-To: <59d991c405050908271b55e673@mail.gmail.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