Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> Maybe you're worrying about something like a billion-row table where
> there are 3 columns that form a composite key: (1,1,1), (1,1,2), ...,
> (1,1000),(1,2,1),...,(1,1000,1000),(2,1,1),...,(1000,1000,1000). In
> that case, treating the leading column as most important will indeed
> be terrible, since we'll put all billion rows into 1000 buckets no
> matter how many bucket splits we do.
> That seems a little unusual, though.
There are few if any indexing techniques where the first column isn't
significantly more important than the rest --- certainly that's true
for btree, for example. I do not think it's a showstopper if that's
true for hash as well.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
