Re: GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Geoghegan
Тема Re: GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes
Дата
Msg-id CAM3SWZQYmqdASR=xNgLZHgGngA29g_1ngOTDv=pHJ3vTj0sAgA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Re: GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought the theoretical advantage of hash indexes wasn't that they
> were smaller but that you avoided a central contention point (the
> btree root).

The B-Tree root isn't really a central contention point at all. The
locking/latching protocol that nbtree uses is remarkably
concurrency-friendly. In the real world, there is pretty much no
exclusive locking of the root page's buffer.

> Of course our current hash indexes have *more* not less contention
> than btree but I'm pretty comfortable chalking that up to quality of
> implementation rather than anything intrinsic.

I am not convinced of that.

--
Peter Geoghegan


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes
Следующее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes