On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:21:33AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> >> 2) Only support bitmap scans and not ordinary tid scans (the way gin
> >> indexes already do).
>
> > -1 on losing amgettuple. I regret that we lost that f
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 30 May 2012 04:54, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>>> This was a hobby horse of mine a couple of years ago, but I never got
>>> much traction. The main question I have is, what do we even want hash
>>> indexes to be? NBTree is very good, has been e
On 30 May 2012 04:54, Robert Haas wrote:
>> This was a hobby horse of mine a couple of years ago, but I never got
>> much traction. The main question I have is, what do we even want hash
>> indexes to be? NBTree is very good, has been extensively optimized,
>> and extensively tested. If there
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> 2) Only support bitmap scans and not ordinary tid scans (the way gin
>> indexes already do).
> -1 on losing amgettuple. I regret that we lost that for GIN and I
> shall regret it more if we lose it anywhere else.
Not
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I ran a SELECT-only pgbench test today on the IBM POWER7 box with 64
>> concurrent clients and got roughly 305,000 tps. Then, I created a
>> hash index on pgbench_accounts (aid), dropped
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I ran a SELECT-only pgbench test today on the IBM POWER7 box with 64
> concurrent clients and got roughly 305,000 tps. Then, I created a
> hash index on pgbench_accounts (aid), dropped the primary key, and
> reran the test. I got roughly 104,
I ran a SELECT-only pgbench test today on the IBM POWER7 box with 64
concurrent clients and got roughly 305,000 tps. Then, I created a
hash index on pgbench_accounts (aid), dropped the primary key, and
reran the test. I got roughly 104,000 tps. 'perf -g -e cs' suggested
lock contention in _hash_f
