Re: Hash index use presently(?) discouraged since 2005: revive or bury it?

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
> To make the test into i/o bound, I change the setrandom from 100000 to
> 10000000; this produced some unexpected results. The hash index is
> pulling about double the tps (~80 vs ~ 40) over the hybrid version.
> Well, unless my methodology is wrong, it's unfair to claim btree is
> beating hash in 'all cases'. hm.

Is this only selects?
Hash performs badly with updates, IIRC.
I haven't tried in a long while, though.