On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Steven Schlansker wrote:
>
> On Aug 19, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 00:09 -0700, Steven Schlansker wrote:
>>> show that our particular application is faster by quite a bit when a
>>> hash index is available.
>>
>> Can you publis
On Aug 19, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 00:09 -0700, Steven Schlansker wrote:
>> I understand that the current wisdom is "don't use hash indices", but
>> (unfortunately?) I have benchmarks that
>> show that our particular application is faster by quite a bit when a
On Aug 19, 2012, at 8:01 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Steven Schlansker
> wrote:
>> I'm using Postgres hash indices on a streaming replica master.
>> As is documented, hash indices are not logged, so the replica does not have
>> access to them.
>>
>> I understa
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Steven Schlansker wrote:
> I'm using Postgres hash indices on a streaming replica master.
> As is documented, hash indices are not logged, so the replica does not have
> access to them.
>
> I understand that the current wisdom is "don't use hash indices", but
> (
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 00:09 -0700, Steven Schlansker wrote:
> I understand that the current wisdom is "don't use hash indices", but
> (unfortunately?) I have benchmarks that
> show that our particular application is faster by quite a bit when a
> hash index is available.
Can you publish the result
I'm using Postgres hash indices on a streaming replica master.
As is documented, hash indices are not logged, so the replica does not have
access to them.
I understand that the current wisdom is "don't use hash indices", but
(unfortunately?) I have benchmarks that
show that our particular applic
