Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL
Date
Msg-id 20050509165133.GJ35026@decibel.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
Responses Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL
Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL
List pgsql-general
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:38:41AM +1000, Neil Conway wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> >Having indexes that people shouldn't be using does add confusion for
> >users, and presents the opportunity for foot-shooting.
>
> Emitting a warning/notice on hash-index creation is something I've
> suggested in the past -- that would be fine with me.

Probably not a bad idea.

> >Even if there is some kind of advantage (would they possibly speed up
> >hash joins?)
>
> No, hash joins and hash indexes are unrelated.

I know they are now, but does that have to be the case? Like I said, I
don't know the history, so I don't know why we even have them to begin
with.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: Function to return number of words in a string?
Next
From: Steve Atkins
Date:
Subject: Re: Function to return number of words in a string?