On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:01 AM, AP <a...@zip.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:12:25PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 6:41 AM, AP <a...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>> > The index is 135GB rather than 900GB (from memory/give or take).
>> Whoa.  Big improvement.
> As an aside, btree for the above is around 2.5x bigger than hash v4 so
> chances are much better that a hash index will fit into ram which has
> its own benefits. :)

Yeah, that's exactly one of the benefit hash indexes can provide over
btree indexes.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

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

Reply via email to