"Simon Riggs" <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Do we think there is hope of improving hash indexes? Sure. They lack WAL support, which is just a small matter of programming. And no one has ever spent any time on performance optimization for them, but it certainly seems like there ought to be scope for improvement. I don't we should toss them unless it's been proven that their theoretical performance advantages can't be realized for some reason. (This is unlike the situation for rtree, because with rtree there was no reason to expect that rtree could dominate gist along any axis.) > If there is hope, is there a specific place to look? I recall some speculation that using bucket size == page size might be a bad choice, because it leads to mostly-empty buckets for typical key sizes and fill factors. Using a configurable bucket size could help a lot. regards, tom lane
