Ann,

> The index itself would be a standard btree using the hash
> as the value. It would be useless for returning records
> in sorted order - but good for retrieval and unique
> constraints. From the application perspective, there would
> be no difference in definition - just removing the limit on
> the length of the key.
>
> Thoughts?

I don't see the value of this type of index, expect to handle
uniqueness.

By even then, now with an index that can be up to 4096 bytes in size,
how realistic is it need an even larger key?

Maybe I'm looking at this to narrowly... can you give an example that
might help me 'see the light'?


Sean