From: | Ildar Musin <i(dot)musin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: General purpose hashing func in pgbench |
Date: | 2018-01-11 16:21:46 |
Message-ID: | 291822a3-0b3a-0b21-c694-c10776f516ac@postgrespro.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
10/01/2018 21:42, Fabien COELHO пишет:
>
> Hmm. I do not think that we should want a shared seed value. The seed
> should be different for each call so as to avoid undesired
> correlations. If wanted, correlation could be obtained by using an
> explicit identical seed.
>
> ISTM that the best way to add the seed is to call random() when the
> second arg is missing in make_func. Also, this means that the executor
> would always get its two arguments, so it would simplify the code there.
>
Ok, I think I understand what you meant. You meant the case like following:
\set x random(1, 100)
\set h1 hash(:x)
\set h2 hash(:x) -- will have different seed from h1
so that different instances of hash function within one script would
have different seeds. Yes, that is a good idea, I can do that.
--
Ildar Musin
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-01-11 16:23:55 | Re: numeric regression test passes, but why? |
Previous Message | Sergei Kornilov | 2018-01-11 16:19:41 | Re: Identifying ALTER TABLE "sub-command" |