Leonardo Francalanci wrote:
> > Before getting too excited about some new academic index type, it's worth
> > noting the sad state in which hash indexes have languished for years.
> > Nobody's bothered to add WAL support, let alone do any other real work
> > on them. The non-btree index types that have been getting love are the
> > ones that offer the ability to index queries that btree can't. I think
> > a new index type whose only benefit is the claim to be faster in a narrow
> > use-case is likely to end up like hash, not getting used enough to be
> > properly maintained.
> Aren't hash indexes in a poor state because they are not faster than
> btree in every condition?
Chicken and egg. Maybe they can be made faster than btrees (in some
situations) with enough tweaks, but because there are so many
outstanding problems, no one wants to do the huge amount of legwork to
even get to the point where such tweaks can be made in the first place.
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: