Re: hash index improving v3

On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 09:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs  writes:
> > Thinks: Why not just sort all of the time and skip the debate entirely?
> 
> The sort is demonstrably a loser for smaller indexes.  Admittedly,
> if the index is small then the sort can't cost all that much, but if
> the (correct) threshold is some large fraction of shared_buffers then
> it could still take awhile on installations with lots-o-buffers.

The other realisation is that for large indexes, giving them more
maintenance_work_mem probably will make them build faster 'cos we'll be
sorting. So "give big indexes more memory" is still true *enough* to be
broadly consistent, explainable and understandable. I do explain things
in more detail on some courses, but pithy rules help busy people.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support