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

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: [GENERAL] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL
Date
Msg-id 4282135A.8000909@samurai.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
Tom Lane wrote:
> Performance?

I'll run some benchmarks tomorrow, as it's rather late in my time zone.
If anyone wants to post some benchmark results, they are welcome to.

> I disagree completely with the idea of forcing this behavior for all
> datatypes.  It could only be sensible for fairly wide values; you don't
> save enough to justify the lossiness otherwise.

I think it would be premature to decide about this before we see some
performance numbers. I'm not fundamentally opposed, though.

> [ BTW, posting patches to pgsql-general seems pretty off-topic. ]

Not any more than discussing implementation details is :) But your point
is well taken, I'll send future patches to -patches.

-Neil

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: John A Meinel
Date:
Subject: Re: Optimizer wrongly picks Nested Loop Left Join
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Optimizer wrongly picks Nested Loop Left Join