| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Mischa Sandberg <mischa(dot)sandberg(at)telus(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2005-05-11 02:14:22 |
| Message-ID: | 42816A7E.3080508@samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Is there a TODO anywhere in this discussion? If so, please let me know.
There are a couple:
- consider changing hash indexes to keep the entries in a hash bucket
sorted, to allow a binary search rather than a linear scan
- consider changing hash indexes to store each key's hash value in
addition to or instead of the key value.
You should probably include a pointer to this discussion as well.
(I'd like to take a look at implementing these if I get a chance.)
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-11 02:17:47 | Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Mischa Sandberg | 2005-05-11 02:05:38 | Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-11 02:17:47 | Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Mischa Sandberg | 2005-05-11 02:06:27 | Re: Partitioning / Clustering |