On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On September 29, 2016 5:28:00 PM PDT, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> >>wrote: >>>> Well, I, for one, find it frustrating. It seems pretty unhelpful to >>>> bring this up only after the code has already been written. >>> >>> I brought this up in person at pgcon too. >> >>To whom? In what context? > > Amit, over dinner.
OK, well, I can't really comment on that, then, except to say that if you waited three months to follow up on the mailing list, you probably can't blame Amit if he thought that it was more of a casual suggestion than a serious objection. Maybe it was? I don't know. For my part, I don't really understand how you think that we could find anything out via relatively simple tests. The hash index code is horribly under-maintained, which is why Amit is able to get large performance improvements out of improving it. If you compare it to btree in some way, it's probably going to lose. But I don't think that answers the question of whether a hash AM that somebody's put some work into will win or lose against a hypothetical hash-over-btree AM that nobody's written. Even if it wins, is that really a reason to leave the hash index code itself in a state of disrepair? We probably would have removed it already except that the infrastructure is used for hash joins and hash aggregation, so we really can't. -- 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
