On 30 May 2012 04:54, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This was a hobby horse of mine a couple of years ago, but I never got
>> much traction. The main question I have is, what do we even want hash
>> indexes to be? NBTree is very good, has been extensively optimized,
>> and extensively tested. If there is a niche left for hash indexes,
>> what is it? Is it just very large keys which don't do well in BTrees,
>> or something else?
>
> Well, TBH, I was hoping they'd be faster than btree.
They are faster than btree in terms of response time, just not as concurrent.
Right now if you have a table bigger than RAM with direct access then
hash indexes will be faster, but I agree that the use case is not
large enough to be worth spending the time to improve hash indexes.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services