On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:01 AM, AP <a...@zip.com.au> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:12:25PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 6:41 AM, AP <a...@zip.com.au> wrote: >> > The index is 135GB rather than 900GB (from memory/give or take). >> >> Whoa. Big improvement. > > > As an aside, btree for the above is around 2.5x bigger than hash v4 so > chances are much better that a hash index will fit into ram which has > its own benefits. :) >
Yeah, that's exactly one of the benefit hash indexes can provide over btree indexes. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
