Re: Combining hash values
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Combining hash values |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 6883.1470065235@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Combining hash values (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Combining hash values
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes:
> On that subject, while looking at hashfunc.c, I spotted that
> hashint8() has a very obvious deficiency, which causes disastrous
> performance with certain inputs:
Well, if you're trying to squeeze 64 bits into a 32-bit result, there
are always going to be collisions somewhere.
> I'd suggest using hash_uint32() for values that fit in a 32-bit
> integer and hash_any() otherwise.
Perhaps, but this'd break existing hash indexes. That might not be
a fatal objection, but if we're going to put users through that
I'd like to think a little bigger in terms of the benefits we get.
I've thought for some time that we needed to move to 64-bit hash function
results, because the size of problem that's reasonable to use a hash join
or hash aggregation for keeps increasing. Maybe we should do that and fix
hashint8 as a side effect.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: