Re: Fast, stable, portable hash function producing 4-byte or 8-byte values?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Erwin Brandstetter <brsaweda(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fast, stable, portable hash function producing 4-byte or 8-byte values?
Date: 2019-12-11 19:20:10
Message-ID: 24650.1576092010@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Erwin Brandstetter <brsaweda(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Guess Tom's warning in
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9434.1568839177@sss.pgh.pa.us about
> portability only refers to hashtextextended() and friends not being there
> in Postgres 10 or older.

Well, the other portability issue that is worth considering is that
these functions are only intended to give stable results within a
particular installation; their use for hash indexes does not require
the same results across different platforms. Notably, most of them
give different answers on little-endian and big-endian machines.

That's not necessarily a reason not to use them, but you have to
be careful what you assume about them.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-12-11 19:25:17 Re: Encoding/collation question
Previous Message Rich Shepard 2019-12-11 19:16:05 Encoding/collation question