Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Claudio Freire
Subject Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it?
Date
Msg-id CAGTBQpanG5vXJctZ42Qz9F9=+pqQjrYyjM6emZio6brh4xQELw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it?  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> c:\Program Files\PostgreSQL\9.0\data>dir/s | grep 16525
> 09/15/2011  07:46 PM       224,641,024 16525
>
> c:\Program Files\PostgreSQL\9.0\data>dir/s | grep 16526
> 09/15/2011  07:49 PM       268,451,840 16526

That's not surprising at all.
Hashes need to be bigger to avoid collisions.

What's more interesting than index creation, is index maintainance and
access costs.
In my experience, btree beats hash.
I haven't tried with 9.1, though.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it?
Next
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it?