Re: Hash Indexes
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
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: 2016-09-30T00:14:40Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 8:06 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. > > I, for one, agree with this position. Well, I, for one, find it frustrating. It seems pretty unhelpful to bring this up only after the code has already been written. The first post on this thread was on May 10th. The first version of the patch was posted on June 16th. This position was first articulated on September 15th. But, by all means, please feel free to do the performance comparison and post the results. I'd be curious to see them myself. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Commits
-
Remove _hash_wrtbuf() in favor of calling MarkBufferDirty().
- 25216c989384 10.0 landed
-
Fix race introduced by 6d46f4783efe457f74816a75173eb23ed8930020.
- 2f4193c3509a 10.0 cited
-
Improve hash index bucket split behavior.
- 6d46f4783efe 10.0 landed
-
Reduce pinning and buffer content locking for btree scans.
- 2ed5b87f96d4 9.5.0 cited