On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > If we don't put in the work to make them useful, then they won't ever become > useful. > > If we do put in the effort (and it would be considerable) then I think they > will be. But you may be correct that the effort required would perhaps be > better used in making btree even more better. I don't think we can conclude > that definitively without putting in the work to do the experiment.
My argument doesn't hinge on there being more important work to do. Rather, I simply don't think that there is never going to be a compelling reason to use hash indexes in production. Apart from the obvious inflexibility, consider what it takes to make index creation fast - insertion-style building of indexes is much slower. Consider multi-key indexes. Now, I'm not telling anyone what to work on, and if someone wants to make hash indexes WAL-logged to plug that hole, don't let me stop you. It probably makes sense as a project to learn more about Postgres internals. However, it would be unfair to not speak up given my misgivings around the practical utility of hash indexes. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
