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@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com 512-569-9461