From: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Xiao Meng <mx(dot)cogito(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH]-hash index improving |
Date: | 2008-07-17 17:54:18 |
Message-ID: | 20080717175418.GK337@it.is.rice.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:42:39PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Xiao Meng escribi?:
> > The patch store hash code only in the index tuple.
> > It based on Neil Conway's patch with an old version of PostgreSQL.
> > It passes the regression test but I didn't test the performance yet.
> > Anyone interested can make a performance test;-)
> > You can undefine the macro HASHVALUE_ONLY in hash.h to get the
> > original implementation.
>
> I think having the HASHVALUE_ONLY define is not a good idea -- it just
> makes the patch harder to read. I suggest just removing the old code
> and putting the new code in place. (That's why we have revision
> control.)
>
One thing it helps is building an old version and a new version
for comparative testing. Otherwise, you could end up with an apples-to-
oranges comparison. I certainly think that the final patch should not
have it, but it is useful now for testing and comparisons.
My two cents,
Ken
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2008-07-17 18:00:07 | Re: [PATCH]-hash index improving |
Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2008-07-17 17:48:32 | Re: [PATCH]-hash index improving |