From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: hash_create API changes (was Re: speedup tidbitmap patch: hash BlockNumber) |
Date: | 2014-12-20 05:15:42 |
Message-ID: | 20141220051542.GM5023@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-12-19 22:03:55 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> I'm not suggesting we change BufferTag or BufferLookupEnt; clearly we
> can't simply throw away any of the fields I was talking about (well,
> except possibly tablespace ID. AFAICT that's completely redundant for
> searching because relid is UNIQUE).
It's actually not. BufferTag's contain relnodes via RelFileNode - that's
not the relation's oid, but the filenode. And that's *not* guranteed
unique across database unfortunately.
> What I am thinking is not using all of those fields in their raw form to calculate the hash value. IE: something analogous to:
>
> hash_any(SharedBufHash, (rot(forkNum, 2) | dbNode) ^ relNode) << 32 | blockNum)
>
> perhaps that actual code wouldn't work, but I don't see why we couldn't do something similar... am I missing something?
I don't think that'd improve anything. Jenkin's hash does have a quite
mixing properties, I don't believe that the above would improve the
quality of the hash.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2014-12-20 06:19:58 | Re: pgsql: Allow pushdown of WHERE quals into subqueries with window functi |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-12-20 05:15:04 | Re: Commitfest problems |