On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Merlin Moncure writes:
>>> HM, what if you junked the current hash indexam, and just implemented
>>> a wrapper over btree so that the 'hash index' was just short hand for
>>> hashing the
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
> c:\Program Files\PostgreSQL\9.0\data>dir/s | grep 16525
> 09/15/2011 07:46 PM 224,641,024 16525
>
> c:\Program Files\PostgreSQL\9.0\data>dir/s | grep 16526
> 09/15/2011 07:49 PM 268,451,840 16526
That's not surprising at all
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Merlin Moncure writes:
>> HM, what if you junked the current hash indexam, and just implemented
>> a wrapper over btree so that the 'hash index' was just short hand for
>> hashing the value into a standard index?
>
> Surely creating such a wrappe
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not entirely following this eagerness to junk that AM, anyway.
> We've put a lot of sweat into it over the years, in the hopes that
> it would eventually be good for something. It's on the edge of
> being good for something now, and there's
Merlin Moncure writes:
> HM, what if you junked the current hash indexam, and just implemented
> a wrapper over btree so that the 'hash index' was just short hand for
> hashing the value into a standard index?
Surely creating such a wrapper would be *more* work than adding WAL
support to the hash
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>
>> HM, what if you junked the current hash indexam, and just implemented
>> a wrapper over btree so that the 'hash index' was just short hand for
>> hashing the value into a standard
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
> HM, what if you junked the current hash indexam, and just implemented
> a wrapper over btree so that the 'hash index' was just short hand for
> hashing the value into a standard index?
I'm doing this (only by hand, indexing on hash(blah))
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 14.09.2011 03:24, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> The big picture though is that we're not going to remove hash indexes,
>> even if they're nearly useless in themselves, because hash index
>> opclasses provide the foundation for the system's kn
thank you all for your advice. i will try the table partitioning approach to
reduce the size of the tables and to be able to handle them more efficiently
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/cannot-use-multicolumn-index-tp4802634p4806239.html
Sent from the Post
