Re: Hash index todo list item

From: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>
To: Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hash index todo list item
Date: 2007-09-06 17:07:24
Message-ID: 113CF969-9481-4BE8-838C-41866D147163@seespotcode.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Sep 6, 2007, at 10:53 , Mark Mielke wrote:

> I don't like the truncating hash suggestion because it limits the
> ability of a hash code to uniquely identify a key.

AIUI, a hash can't be used as a unique identifier: it always needs to
be rechecked due to the chance of collisions. There might be other
issues with truncation, but preventing hashes from being unique isn't
one of them.

Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2007-09-06 17:22:36 Re: [FEATURE REQUEST] Streaming Onlinebackup (Maybe OFFTOPIC)
Previous Message Greg Smith 2007-09-06 16:27:44 Re: Just-in-time Background Writer Patch+Test Results