Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it?

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> HM, what if you junked the current hash indexam, and just implemented
> a wrapper over btree so that the 'hash index' was just short hand for
> hashing the value into a standard index?

I'm doing this (only by hand, indexing on hash(blah)) on an
application, and it works wonders.
But... it's kinda not a hash table. It's still O(log N).

However, it would be a *very* useful feature if it can be made
transparent for applications.
And I would prefer it over a true hashtable, in the end. Hashes are,
in fact, O(N) worst case.