Re: Re: custom hash-based COUNT(DISTINCT) aggregate - unexpectedly high memory consumption

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Claudio Freire
Тема Re: Re: custom hash-based COUNT(DISTINCT) aggregate - unexpectedly high memory consumption
Дата
Msg-id CAGTBQpbRg4tabkvEFu2gb=Aiv67uhnHzYsMgykTArGeTxRKQpw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Re: custom hash-based COUNT(DISTINCT) aggregate - unexpectedly high memory consumption  (Atri Sharma <atri.jiit@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Re: custom hash-based COUNT(DISTINCT) aggregate - unexpectedly high memory consumption  (Atri Sharma <atri.jiit@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Atri Sharma <atri.jiit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Consider the aspects associated with open addressing.Open addressing
>>> can quickly lead to growth in the main table.Also, chaining is a much
>>> cleaner way of collision resolution,IMHO.
>>
>> What do you mean by "growth in the main table"?
>
> Sorry, I should have been more verbose.
>
> AFAIK, Open addressing can be slower with a load factor approaching 1
> as compared to chaining. Also, I feel that implementation of open
> addressing can be more complicated as we have to deal with deletes
> etc.


Deletes for a hash aggregate?



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Atri Sharma
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Re: custom hash-based COUNT(DISTINCT) aggregate - unexpectedly high memory consumption
Следующее
От: David Fetter
Дата:
Сообщение: CREATE FOREIGN TABLE ( ... LIKE ... )