On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 12:10:57AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > be responsive to your search.) (This also brings up the thought that > it might be interesting to support hash buckets smaller than a page ... > but I don't know how to make that work in an adaptive fashion.) IIRC, other databases that support hash indexes also allow you to define the bucket size, so it might be a good start to allow for that. DBA's usually have a pretty good idea of what a table will look like in production, so if there's clear documentation on the effect of bucket size a good DBA should be able to make a good decision. What's the challange to making it adaptive, comming up with an algorithm that gives you the optimal bucket size (which I would think there's research on...) or allowing the index to accommodate different bucket sizes existing in the index at once? (Presumably you don't want to re-write the entire index every time it looks like a different bucket size would help.) -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel@xxxxxxxxxxx Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?" ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
