Re: Making hash indexes worthwhile - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: Making hash indexes worthwhile
Date
Msg-id f67928030910042305t3e49080cy905beeca9999bf01@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Making hash indexes worthwhile  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Making hash indexes worthwhile  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I've played around a bit with hash indexes, and it seems to me that
>> making them generally worthwhile will take (at least) reducing or
>> entirely doing away with the heavy-wait locks.
>
> Concurrency is really the least of the issues for hash indexes.  So far
> it's not clear that they're fast enough even in sequential use ...

Do you know why that should be?  I've done some work with gprof, and
the results are pretty suspect, because the total gprof time adds up
to only about 1/3 of the total time the backend spends on CPU
(according to "top"), and I don't know where the unaccounted for time
is going.  But a good part of the accounted-for time seems to be
associated with the locking system, even when there is only one active
backend.

Cheers,

Jeff


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Itagaki Takahiro
Date:
Subject: Re: Buffer usage in EXPLAIN and pg_stat_statements (review)
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Rules: A Modest Proposal