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

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> 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 knowledge of how to
>> do the datatype-specific hashing needed for hash joins and hash
>> aggregation.  And those things *are* big wins, even if hash indexes
>> themselves never become so.
>
> We could drop the hash indexam code but keep the opclasses etc. I'm not sure
> that would gain us, though.

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?

merlin