X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA8E2537AB for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:08:29 -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 57463-02 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:08:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from morework.geizhals.at (home.geizhals.at [213.229.14.34]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC7B53FB9 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:08:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (morework [127.0.0.1]) by morework.geizhals.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8477DEE7D; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 04:08:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [172.16.42.198] (unknown [172.16.42.198]) by morework.geizhals.at (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 04:08:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <42685C98.3000404@geizhals.at> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 04:08:24 +0200 From: Marinos Yannikos User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Odd error message (" hash indexes do not support whole-index References: <426673DA.2020203@geizhals.at> <1559.1114012954@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <1559.1114012954@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 at geizhals.at X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.05 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200504/316 X-Sequence-Number: 21209 Tom Lane wrote: > Good catch. But why are you using a hash index for this? Just experimenting - I was trying to determine whether a hash index would give better performance - the values are always unique except when they're 0 and < > relations are never needed. That particular query would have been needed only once for maintainance work. Regards, Marinos