I'm not really sure why you are against choice, I can see two reasons:

1) Usability.
2) Software development complexity increase.

The first point can be solved by documentation. Nobody starts to use
Firebird without reading any kind of documentation.

The second point is exactly what the hash index thread is about. I think it
is wrong to discuss hash indexes without discussing other storage engines.
Hash indexes is really about optimizing something by storing data physically
in another way. So are storage engines.

Lars.

On 7/11/06, Dmitry Yemanov <dimitr@...> wrote:
>
> "Lars Dybdahl" <ldybdahl@... <ldybdahl%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think there is real disagreement on whether it makes sense to
> use
> > hash indexes or not - we're basically just discussing where to put the
> > feature.
>
> Sorry, but I didn't see strong arguments in favour of hash indices yet.
> And,
> looking at some other RDBMS, I see them adding hash indices to please 1%
> of
> users and a few versions later declaring them deprecated. I doubt we need
> this experience.
>
>
> > However, there's demand for multiple storage engines, with each their
> index
> > types, and the ability to select engine type for each database table:
>
> Is there really such a demand? I hope you don't want to suggest us the
> mess
> existing for MySQL users.
>
> Dmitry
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]