Wow... not sure how I missed that. I *did* create this schema ages ago, perhaps it wasn't there, or at the time I had
noidea what the implications were. *shrug*<br /> Regards,<br /> - Naz.<br /><br /><br /> Tom Lane wrote: <blockquote
cite="mid:20662.1183344247@sss.pgh.pa.us"type="cite"><pre wrap="">Naz Gassiep <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:naz@mira.net"><naz@mira.net></a>writes: </pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">As a result, when
creatingtables containing large blocks of text I wish
to index, I've been using HASH as an index method. Please can we state
in the manual that HASH index types are in a beta stage of development
or something similar, or perhaps remove the manual entry altogether
until HASH is at a point where it is usable in production. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
Uh, the manual already does say
Note: Testing has shown PostgreSQL's hash indexes to perform no better than B-tree indexes, and the index size and
buildtime for hash indexes is much worse. Furthermore, hash index operations are not presently WAL-logged, so hash
indexesmight need to be rebuilt with REINDEX after a database crash. For these reasons, hash index use is presently
discouraged.
under 11.2 Index Types, as well as various derogatory remarks elsewhere.
regards, tom lane
</pre></blockquote>
