Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > What if the hash index stored *only* the hash code? That could be useful for > > indexing large datatypes that would otherwise create large indexes. > > Hmm, that could be a thought.
Hm, if you go this route of having hash indexes store tuples ordered by hash code and storing the hash code in the index, then it seems hash indexes become just a macro for a btree index of HASH(index columns). I'm not saying that to criticize this plan. In fact I think that captures most (though not all) of what a hash index should be. It would be pretty useful. In fact if it isn't how hash indexes are implemented then it might be useful to provide a user visible hash(ROW) function that allows creating such indexes as functional indexes. Though hiding it would make the SQL simpler. -- greg ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
