Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Dmitry G. Mastrukov" <dmitry@taurussoft.org> writes:
> > Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Dmitry G. Mastrukov wrote:
> > I've marked "=" operator with HASH clause (and planner has started to
> > use
> > hash jons). But as I understand the right way is to create special hash
> > function (may be wrapper for hash_any(), isn't it?) and register it for
> > hash
> > as for btree method.
> >>
> >> No. Currently, there's no way to specify a hash function for a given
> >> operator, it always uses a builtin function that operates on memory
> >> representation of a value.
>
> > Strange. When I execute following query (slightly modified query from
User's
> > Guide chapter 7.6)
>
> You're looking at support for hash indexes, which have nothing to do
> with hash joins.
>
> *Why* they have nothing to do with hash joins, I dunno. You'd think
> that using the same hash functions for both would be a good idea.
> But that's not how it's set up at the moment.
>
OK. It's clear for me now. Thanks.
But should I create support for hash indexes? Since builtin types have such
support I want it too for uniqueidentifier :) How can I make it?
regards,
Dmitry
