On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 11:06 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> HASH - works OK, but a pain to administer, no huge benefit in using
At least in theory, I think this could offer better performance for
equality searches than b+-tree. Given how common those kinds of queries
are, I still think hash indexes are worth putting some time into. My
guess is that their relatively poor performance at present (relative to
b+-trees) is just a reflection of how much more tuning and design work
has gone into the b+-tree code than the hash code.
> R-TREE - slightly broken in places, limited in usablity
I agree. I hope that when we have a good GiST infrastructure,
implementing rtree via GiST will offer performance that is as good as or
better than the builtin rtree.
> GiST - index of choice for PostGIS, TSearch2, in need of optimization
I'm working on adding page-level locking and WAL safety, although this
is a pretty difficult project. Gavin and I are also looking at
algorithms for bulk loading GiST indexes, although I'm not yet sure how
possible that will be.
-Neil
