Re: Next Steps with Hash Indexes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Next Steps with Hash Indexes
Date
Msg-id 3970993.1628692204@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Next Steps with Hash Indexes  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Next Steps with Hash Indexes  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I suspect it would be hard to store multiple hash values, one per
> column. It seems to me that what we ought to do is combine the hash
> values for the individual columns using hash_combine(64) and store the
> combined value. I can't really imagine why we would NOT do that.

That would make it impossible to use the index except with queries
that provide equality conditions on all the index columns.  Maybe
that's fine, but it seems less flexible than other possible definitions.
It really makes me wonder why anyone would bother with a multicol
hash index.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Next Steps with Hash Indexes
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: DROP relation IF EXISTS Docs and Tests - Bug Fix