On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> On 2016-09-28 15:04:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Andres already >>> stated that he things working on btree-over-hash would be more >>> beneficial than fixing hash, but at this point it seems like he's the >>> only one who takes that position. >> >> Note that I did *NOT* take that position. I was saying that I think we >> should evaluate whether that's not a better approach, doing some simple >> performance comparisons. > > I, for one, agree with this position.
Well, I, for one, find it frustrating. It seems pretty unhelpful to bring this up only after the code has already been written. The first post on this thread was on May 10th. The first version of the patch was posted on June 16th. This position was first articulated on September 15th. But, by all means, please feel free to do the performance comparison and post the results. I'd be curious to see them myself. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
