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 CAGTBQpbvMW55NPs2Oe_zpuYwcvRed=KQOG5-CnXHrCLqbwL-eQ@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>)
Responses Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it?  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> HM, what if you junked the current hash indexam, and just implemented
> a wrapper over btree so that the 'hash index' was just short hand for
> hashing the value into a standard index?

I'm doing this (only by hand, indexing on hash(blah)) on an
application, and it works wonders.
But... it's kinda not a hash table. It's still O(log N).

However, it would be a *very* useful feature if it can be made
transparent for applications.
And I would prefer it over a true hashtable, in the end. Hashes are,
in fact, O(N) worst case.

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?