From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Elielson Fontanezi <ElielsonF@prodam.sp.gov.br>
Cc: 'Daryl Herzmann' <akrherz@iastate.edu>
Cc: pgsql-sql <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: RES: RES: [SQL] Queries not using Index
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:20:40 -0400
Message-ID: <12808.1027534840@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A799F7647794D311924A005004ACEA97080DDE8C@cprodamibs249.prodam>
References: <A799F7647794D311924A005004ACEA97080DDE8C@cprodamibs249.prodam>
Elielson Fontanezi <ElielsonF@prodam.sp.gov.br> writes:
> Hum... What such thing strange.
> Hash algorithms should be better than BTREE and RTREE algorithms.
Perhaps. The problem with Postgres' hash indexes is that no one has
worked on the hash-index code since Berkeley days (except for one or
two minor bugfixes, I think). The btree code has gotten a lot more
care and attention, so it is now much better than the hash code.
I'm not sure whether it's really worth anyone's time to try to
bring the hash index code up to speed. It *might* be better
than btree for certain limited applications, if it were equally
well implemented. Or it might not. You'd have to invest a lot
of work to find out, and might well discover that your work
was wasted.
regards, tom lane
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, ElielsonF@prodam.sp.gov.br, akrherz@iastate.edu, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: RES: RES: [SQL] Queries not using Index
In-Reply-To: <12808.1027534840@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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