Lars Dybdahl 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.
>
> Right now, there's basically one storage engine and one index type.
>
> However, there's demand for multiple storage engines, with each their index
> types, and the ability to select engine type for each database table:
>
>

Multiple storages engines are a very mixed blessing. Yes, you can get
some efficiencies with downgraded semantics, but the headache of
maintaining consistent semantics across a set of necessarily
incompatible storage engine is close to overwhelming. I would also need
a great deal of convincing that there actually is significant merit to
alternative index types. I wouldn't be so rash as to suggest that there
can't be a better alternative to btree indexes, but btree indexes have
really met the standard of time, giving excellent balance between
performance and simplicity. On the larger question of storage engines,
may I remind you that problem of an appropriate storage engine API is
still unsolved?

--

Jim Starkey
978 526-1376