Re: GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM3SWZQYmqdASR=xNgLZHgGngA29g_1ngOTDv=pHJ3vTj0sAgA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes
Re: GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > I thought the theoretical advantage of hash indexes wasn't that they > were smaller but that you avoided a central contention point (the > btree root). The B-Tree root isn't really a central contention point at all. The locking/latching protocol that nbtree uses is remarkably concurrency-friendly. In the real world, there is pretty much no exclusive locking of the root page's buffer. > Of course our current hash indexes have *more* not less contention > than btree but I'm pretty comfortable chalking that up to quality of > implementation rather than anything intrinsic. I am not convinced of that. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: