On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:33:01AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 1:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Currently, hash indexes always store the hash code in the index, but
> > not the actual Datum. It's recently been noted that this can make a
> > hash index smaller than the corresponding btree index would be if the
> > column is wide. However, if the index is being built on a fixed-width
> > column with a typlen <= sizeof(Datum), we could store the original
> > value in the hash index rather than the hash code without using any
> > more space. That would complicate the code, but I bet it would be
> > faster: we wouldn't need to set xs_recheck, we could rule out hash
> > collisions without visiting the heap, and we could support index-only
> > scans in such cases.
> >
>
> What exactly you mean by Datum? Is it for datatypes that fits into 64
> bits like integer. I think if we are able to support index only scans
> for hash indexes for some data types, that will be a huge plus.
> Surely, there is some benefit without index only scans as well, which
> is we can avoid recheck, but not sure if that alone can give us any
> big performance boost. As, you say, it might lead to some
> complication in code, but I think it is worth trying.
>
> Won't it add some requirements for pg_upgrade as well?
Yes, pg_upgrade will mark the indexes as invalid and supply a script to
reindex them.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
