Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes: > Here's an idea: when a user ask for an Hash Index transparently build a > BTree index over an hash function instead.
-1. If someone asks for a hash index, they should get a hash index. If you feel the documentation isn't sufficiently clear about the problems involved, we can work on that. The bigger picture here is that such an approach amounts to deciding that no one will ever be allowed to fix hash indexes. I'm not for that, even if I'm not volunteering to be the fixer myself. I also don't believe your claim that this would always be faster than a real hash index. What happened to O(1) vs O(log N)? Lastly: what real-world problem are we solving by kicking that code to the curb? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers