Re: code question: storing INTO relation
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: code question: storing INTO relation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1100473156.23420.12.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: code question: storing INTO relation (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: code question: storing INTO relation
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 11:06 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > HASH - works OK, but a pain to administer, no huge benefit in using At least in theory, I think this could offer better performance for equality searches than b+-tree. Given how common those kinds of queries are, I still think hash indexes are worth putting some time into. My guess is that their relatively poor performance at present (relative to b+-trees) is just a reflection of how much more tuning and design work has gone into the b+-tree code than the hash code. > R-TREE - slightly broken in places, limited in usablity I agree. I hope that when we have a good GiST infrastructure, implementing rtree via GiST will offer performance that is as good as or better than the builtin rtree. > GiST - index of choice for PostGIS, TSearch2, in need of optimization I'm working on adding page-level locking and WAL safety, although this is a pretty difficult project. Gavin and I are also looking at algorithms for bulk loading GiST indexes, although I'm not yet sure how possible that will be. -Neil
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: