On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 03:32:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > That leaves hash. I'm hoping someone will step up and do WAL logging > for hash in the near future. Unlike rtree, I'm not expecting that we > might get rid of hash indexes. Even if the performance problems never > get fixed, we use hash index opclasses to manage datatype-specific > hashing for hash joins, hash aggregation, etc, so if we removed hash > indexes we'd need to find some other representation for all that. So does that mean a hash index could (theoretically) improve the performance of a hash join or hash aggregation? -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com 512-569-9461
