Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes
От
Robert Haas
Тема
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes
Дата
Msg-id
CA+TgmoY9O9CesFCivK8Pq77aon5Sy=6LTTb6y_hcUYAQ1NxpoA@mail.gmail.com
Ответ на
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes (Tomasz Ostrowski)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
[HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes Tomasz Ostrowski <tometzky+pg@ato.waw.pl>
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes Tomasz Ostrowski <tometzky+pg@ato.waw.pl>
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Multicolumn hash indexes Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Tomasz Ostrowski wrote: > I feel that this would eliminate a large amount of potential gains from such > an index. This would be usable only when a sufficiently variable column > exists, in which case a simple hash index on the column wouldn't be much > worse. If the index isn't very selective and any query will match many rows anyway, I think it will often be superior to use a BRIN index (but I might be wrong). Maybe you're worrying about something like a billion-row table where there are 3 columns that form a composite key: (1,1,1), (1,1,2), ..., (1,1000),(1,2,1),...,(1,1000,1000),(2,1,1),...,(1000,1000,1000). In that case, treating the leading column as most important will indeed be terrible, since we'll put all billion rows into 1000 buckets no matter how many bucket splits we do. That seems a little unusual, though. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Bossart, Nathan
Дата:
От: Alexander Korotkov
Дата: