Re: hash index improving v3 - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: hash index improving v3
Date
Msg-id 26331.1222175594@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: hash index improving v3  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: hash index improving v3  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Re: hash index improving v3  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Re: hash index improving v3  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> Thinks: Why not just sort all of the time and skip the debate entirely?

The sort is demonstrably a loser for smaller indexes.  Admittedly,
if the index is small then the sort can't cost all that much, but if
the (correct) threshold is some large fraction of shared_buffers then
it could still take awhile on installations with lots-o-buffers.

The other side of that coin is that it's not clear this is really worth
arguing about, much less exposing a separate parameter for.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: hash index improving v3
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: hash index improving v3