Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage?
Date
Msg-id 20276.1019788334@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> I hate to do that because it makes people think something special is
> happening for hash, but it isn't.  We could throw an elog(NOTICE)
> stating that hash is not recommended and btree is faster, or something
> like that.

I think the only action called for is some improvement in the
documentation.  Right now the docs are not honest about the state
of any of the non-btree index methods.  Ain't none of 'em ready
for prime time IMHO.  GIST is the only one that's getting any
development attention --- and probably the only one that deserves
it, given limited resources.  Hash offers no compelling advantage
over btree AFAICS, and rtree is likewise dominated by GIST (or would
be, if we shipped rtree-equivalent GIST opclasses in the standard
distribution).

I do not like "throw an elog" as a substitute for documentation.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Rod Taylor"
Date:
Subject: pg_constraint
Next
From: Curt Sampson
Date:
Subject: Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE