On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 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. > > Really, what do we have to lose at this point? It's not very difficult > to do what Andres proposes.
Well, first of all, I can't, because I don't really understand what tests he has in mind. Maybe somebody else does, in which case perhaps they could do the work and post the results. If the tests really are simple, that shouldn't be much of a burden. But, second, suppose we do the tests and find out that the hash-over-btree idea completely trounces hash indexes. What then? I don't think that would really prove anything because, as I said in my email to Andres, the current hash index code is severely under-optimized, so it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. But even if it did prove something, is the idea then that Amit (with help from Mithun and Ashutosh Sharma) should throw away the ~8 months of development work that's been done on hash indexes in favor of starting all over with a new and probably harder project to build a whole new AM, and just leave hash indexes broken? That doesn't seem like a very reasonable think to ask. Leaving hash indexes broken fixes no problem that we have. On the other hand, applying those patches (after they've been suitably reviewed and fixed up) does fix several things. For one thing, we can stop shipping a totally broken feature in release after release. For another thing, those hash indexes do in fact outperform btree on some workloads, and with more work they can probably beat btree on more workloads. And if somebody later wants to write hash-over-btree and that turns out to be better still, great! I'm not blocking anyone from doing that. The only argument that's been advanced for not fixing hash indexes is that we'd then have to give people accurate guidance on whether to choose hash or btree, but that would also be true of a hypothetical hash-over-btree AM. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers