On 5/9/05, Neil Conway <neilc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I don't think we've found a case in which the hash index code > outperforms B+-tree indexes, even for "=". The hash index code also has > a number of additional issues: for example, it isn't WAL safe, it has > relatively poor concurrency, and creating a hash index is significantly > slower than creating a b+-tree index. This being the case, is there ever ANY reason for someone to use it? If not, then shouldn't we consider deprecating it and eventually removing it. This would reduce complexity, I think. Chris -- | Christopher Petrilli | petrilli@xxxxxxxxx ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
