On 25/09/16 18:18, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
But to kick the hash AM as such to the curb is to say
"sorry, there will never be O(1) index lookups in Postgres".
Well there's plenty of halfway solutions for that. We could move hash
indexes to contrib or even have them in core as experimental_hash or
unlogged_hash until the day they achieve their potential.

We definitely shouldn't discourage people from working on hash indexes

Okay, but to me it appears that naming it as experimental_hash or
moving it to contrib could discourage people or at the very least
people will be less motivated.  Thinking on those lines a year or so
back would have been a wise direction, but now when already there is
lot of work done (patches to make it wal-enabled, more concurrent and
performant, page inspect module are available) for hash indexes and
still more is in progress, that sounds like a step backward then step


I think so too - I've seen many email threads over the years on this list that essentially state "we need hash indexes wal logged to make progress with them"...and Amit et al has/have done this (more than this obviously - made 'em better too) and I'm astonished that folk are suggesting anything other than 'commit this great patch now!'...



Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to