Kenneth Marshall wrote:
>I understand that a hash value is a many-to-one mapping. That is the
>point of the flag in the index. The flag means that there is only one
>item in the heap corresponding to that hash value. In this case we
>know that the value in the heap is the correct one and a possibly
>very expensive string comparison can be skipped. Given that the hash
>function is doing its job, almost every string comparison can be skipped.
>How long would it take to compare 1-32K of data? How much CPU usage?
>With this field in place, you only need to check tuple visibility.
>
>
How likely is it that you will get a hash collision, two strings that
are different that will hash to the same value? To avoid this requires
a very large hash key (128 bits, minimum)- otherwise you get into
birthday attack problems. With a 32-bit hash, the likelyhood is greater
than 50% that two strings in a collection of 100,000 will hash to the
same value. With a 64-bit hash, the likelyhood is greater than 50% that
two strings in a collection of 10 billion will has to same value. 10
billion is a large number, but not an unreasonable number, of strings to
want to put into a hash table- and it's exactly this case where the O(1)
cost of hashtables starts being a real win.
Brian