Re: Hash Indexes

Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> But to kick the hash AM as such to the curb is to say
>> "sorry, there will never be O(1) index lookups in Postgres".

> Well there's plenty of halfway solutions for that. We could move hash
> indexes to contrib or even have them in core as experimental_hash or
> unlogged_hash until the day they achieve their potential.

> We definitely shouldn't discourage people from working on hash indexes
> but we probably shouldn't have released ten years worth of a feature
> marked "please don't use this" that's guaranteed to corrupt your
> database and cause weird problems if you use it a any of a number of
> supported situations (including non-replicated system recovery that
> has been a bedrock feature of Postgres for over a decade).

Obviously that has not been a good situation, but we lack a time
machine to retroactively make it better, so I don't see much point
in fretting over what should have been done in the past.

> Arguably adding a hashed btree opclass and relegating the existing
> code to an experimental state would actually encourage development
> since a) Users would actually be likely to use the hashed btree
> opclass so any work on a real hash opclass would have a real userbase
> ready and waiting for delivery, b) delivering a real hash opclass
> wouldn't involve convincing users to unlearn a million instructions
> warning not to use this feature and c) The fear of breaking existing
> users use cases and databases would be less and pg_upgrade would be an
> ignorable problem at least until the day comes for the big cutover of
> the default to the new opclass.

I'm not following your point here.  There is no hash-over-btree AM and
nobody (including Andres) has volunteered to create one.  Meanwhile,
we have a patch in hand to WAL-enable the hash AM.  Why would we do
anything other than apply that patch and stop saying hash is deprecated?

			regards, tom lane