Re: HASH: Out of overflow pages. Out of luck
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
To: "Gene Selkov, Jr." <selkovjr@xnet.com>, <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2002-08-05T02:36:57Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> I saw Tom answer a similar question a year ago, by saying that the > hash access method is poorly supported and that there is no advantage > to using it. I am not sure about the former, but the latter is not > entirely true: we saw at least 20% gain in performance when we > switched from btree to hash, and my boss considers 20% a big enough > improvement. Besides, he knows the database theory and he is a > long-time BerkelyDB user, and in his world, hash is greatly superior > to btree, so he is wondering why are the postgres implementations so > close. Besides, it's a tough challenge to explain it to a Libertarian > that he'd better not do something. > > I guess we can make such people happy by either fixing hash, or by > making btree very much worse -- whichever is easier :) Cool. I'm sure that making btree much worse is definitely within my ability - I'll submit a patch shortly with new pg_bench results. Chris