| From: | Andrei Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alena Rybakina <a(dot)rybakina(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Finnerty, Jim" <jfinnert(at)amazon(dot)com>, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru, Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes |
| Date: | 2023-11-27 08:02:09 |
| Message-ID: | 04ef16eb-46c1-4ce7-9f68-d1c80ef0be81@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 25/11/2023 08:23, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> I think patch certainly gets better in this aspect. One thing I can't
> understand is why do we use home-grown code for resolving
> hash-collisions. You can just define custom hash and match functions
> in HASHCTL. Even if we need to avoid repeated JumbleExpr calls, we
> still can save pre-calculated hash value into hash entry and use
> custom hash and match. This doesn't imply us to write our own
> collision-resolving code.
Thanks, it was an insightful suggestion.
I implemented it, and the code has become shorter (see attachment).
--
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v12-0001-Transform-OR-clause-to-ANY-expressions.patch | text/plain | 54.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Drouvot, Bertrand | 2023-11-27 08:45:33 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2023-11-27 07:37:20 | Re: brininsert optimization opportunity |