On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > My only firm position is that it wouldn't be very hard to investigate > hash-over-btree to Andres' satisfaction, say, so, why not? I'm > surprised that this has caused consternation -- ISTM that Andres' > suggestion is *perfectly* reasonable. It doesn't appear to be an > objection to anything in particular.
I would just be very disappointed if, after the amount of work that Amit and others have put into this project, the code gets rejected because somebody thinks a different project would have been more worth doing. As Tom said upthread: $$But to kick the hash AM as such to the curb is to say "sorry, there will never be O(1) index lookups in Postgres".$$ I think that's correct and a sufficiently-good reason to pursue this work, regardless of the merits (or lack of merits) of hash-over-btree. The fact that we have hash indexes already and cannot remove them because too much other code depends on hash opclasses is also, in my opinion, a sufficiently good reason to pursue improving them. I don't think the project needs the additional justification of outperforming a hash-over-btree in order to exist, even if such a comparison could be done fairly, which I suspect is harder than you're crediting. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers