On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 14.09.2011 03:24, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> The big picture though is that we're not going to remove hash indexes, >> even if they're nearly useless in themselves, because hash index >> opclasses provide the foundation for the system's knowledge of how to >> do the datatype-specific hashing needed for hash joins and hash >> aggregation. And those things *are* big wins, even if hash indexes >> themselves never become so. > > We could drop the hash indexam code but keep the opclasses etc. I'm not sure > that would gain us, though. HM, what if you junked the current hash indexam, and just implemented a wrapper over btree so that the 'hash index' was just short hand for hashing the value into a standard index? merlin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
