From 9f3f0a9935ac094106bb3ed75bf7b50b0dfd9de6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 20:05:44 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Remove documentation mention that hash indexes perform no
 better than btree;  keep mention about missing WAL logging.

Kenneth Marshall
---
 doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml | 7 ++-----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml
index f02a9579d1..c09cd22689 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml
@@ -190,13 +190,10 @@ CREATE INDEX <replaceable>name</replaceable> ON <replaceable>table</replaceable>
 
   <note>
    <para>
-    Testing has shown <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>'s hash
-    indexes to perform no better than B-tree indexes, and the
-    index size and build time for hash indexes is much worse.
-    Furthermore, hash index operations are not presently WAL-logged,
+    Hash index operations are not presently WAL-logged,
     so hash indexes might need to be rebuilt with <command>REINDEX</>
     after a database crash.
-    For these reasons, hash index use is presently discouraged.
+    For this reason, hash index use is presently discouraged.
    </para>
   </note>
 
-- 
2.39.5