Re: [HACKERS] GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM3SWZR+OBRiMN=L6CrJDKtH+7eEJwhwYhT2fsP-B_oC0qHyVQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes ("ktm@rice.edu" <ktm@rice.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes
|
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:55 AM, ktm@rice.edu <ktm@rice.edu> wrote: > I do not think that CPU costs matter as much as the O(1) probe to > get a result value specifically for very large indexes/tables where > even caching the upper levels of a B-tree index would kill your > working set in memory. I know, I know, everyone has so much memory > and can just buy more... but this does matter. Have you actually investigated how little memory it takes to store the inner pages? It's typically less than 1% of the entire index. AFAIK, hash indexes are not used much in any other system. I think MySQL has them, and SQL Server 2014 has special in-memory hash table indexes for in memory tables, but that's all I can find on Google. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: