Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> I had submitted the documentation change as part of my
> hash function patch but it was removed as not relevant.
> (It wasn't really.) I would basically remove the first
> sentence:
>
> Note: Hash index operations are not presently WAL-logged,
> so hash indexes might need to be rebuilt with REINDEX after a
> database crash. For this reason, hash index use is presently
> discouraged.
Change made and attached; thanks.
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Index: doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.75
diff -c -c -r1.75 indices.sgml
*** doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml 23 Sep 2008 09:20:34 -0000 1.75
--- doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml 7 Feb 2009 20:03:51 -0000
***************
*** 190,202 ****
<note>
<para>
! Testing has shown <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>'s hash
! indexes to perform no better than B-tree indexes, and the
! index size and build time for hash indexes is much worse.
! Furthermore, hash index operations are not presently WAL-logged,
so hash indexes might need to be rebuilt with <command>REINDEX</>
after a database crash.
! For these reasons, hash index use is presently discouraged.
</para>
</note>
--- 190,199 ----
<note>
<para>
! Hash index operations are not presently WAL-logged,
so hash indexes might need to be rebuilt with <command>REINDEX</>
after a database crash.
! For this reason, hash index use is presently discouraged.
</para>
</note>
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
