FYI, I just patched the fill-factor calculation and re-ran my test. The index size dropped from 513M to 43M which is the same disk footprint as the corresponding btree index.
Have a nice weekend. Ken On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:23:14PM -0500, Kenneth Marshall wrote: > I just ran my original 16M word test case against the patched > version, and like Tom noted below, the tuples per bucket > calculation is wrong which results in identical index sizes > for both the original version and the hash-value-only version. > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
