Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage?
Date
Msg-id 7406.1019769283@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage?  (Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com> writes:
>  I don't know about PGs implementation but since I assume oyu all 
> inhereted atleast part of it from the berkely boys you should be in very 
> solid form.

One would have thought so, wouldn't one?  AFAIK the hash index code is
lock-stock-and-barrel straight from Berkeley; we've not touched it
except for minor tweaking (portability issues and such).

I spent a little time reading the code whilst I was waiting for the hash
index build to complete, and was kind of wondering why it bothers to
maintain bitmaps of free space.  Seems like it could just keep all the
free pages chained together in a list, for zero overhead cost, and skip
the bitmaps.  It locks the metapage anyway when allocating or freeing
a page, so keeping the freelist head pointer there doesn't seem like it
would have any performance penalty...

<<whacks self on head>> NO <<whack>>  I am not getting involved with the
hash index code.  I don't think it's worth our trouble.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage?
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction