| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |