> Before getting too excited about some new academic index type, it's worth
> noting the sad state in which hash indexes have languished for years.
> Nobody's bothered to add WAL support, let alone do any other real work
> on them. The non-btree index types that have been getting love are the
> ones that offer the ability to index queries that btree can't. I think
> a new index type whose only benefit is the claim to be faster in a narrow
> use-case is likely to end up like hash, not getting used enough to be
> properly maintained.
> regards, tom lane
Aren't hash indexes in a poor state because they are not faster than btree in every condition?
