Horton

Re: Hash Indexes

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-09-28T19:07:46Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-09-28 15:04:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Andres already
>> stated that he things working on btree-over-hash would be more
>> beneficial than fixing hash, but at this point it seems like he's the
>> only one who takes that position.
>
> Note that I did *NOT* take that position. I was saying that I think we
> should evaluate whether that's not a better approach, doing some simple
> performance comparisons.

OK, sorry.  I evidently misunderstood your position, for which I apologize.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

  1. Remove _hash_wrtbuf() in favor of calling MarkBufferDirty().

  2. Fix race introduced by 6d46f4783efe457f74816a75173eb23ed8930020.

  3. Improve hash index bucket split behavior.

  4. Reduce pinning and buffer content locking for btree scans.