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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [GENERAL] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL
Date
Msg-id 27799.1115765781@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL  (Mischa Sandberg <mischa.sandberg@telus.net>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL  (Mischa Sandberg <mischa.sandberg@telus.net>)
List pgsql-performance
Mischa Sandberg <mischa.sandberg@telus.net> writes:
> The PG hash join is the simplest possible: build a hash table in memory,
> and match an input stream against it.

> *Hybrid hash* is where you spill the hash to disk in a well-designed
> way. Instead of thinking of it as building a hash table in memory, think
> of it as partitioning one input; if some or all of it fits in memory,
> all the better. The boundary condition is the same.

[ raised eyebrow... ]  Apparently you've not read the code.  It's been
hybrid hashjoin since we got it from Berkeley.  Probably not the best
possible implementation of the concept, but we do understand about spill
to disk.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Mark Lewis
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL
Next
From: Mischa Sandberg
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL