| From: | "Joel Jacobson" <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Tomas Vondra" <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "jian he" <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Do we want a hashset type? |
| Date: | 2023-06-11 20:05:39 |
| Message-ID: | 7cdc1ecf-2af7-4c10-8646-db5f6f92d37f@app.fastmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 11, 2023, at 16:58, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>On 2023-06-11 Su 06:26, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>>Perhaps "set" would have been a better name, since the use of hash functions from an end-user perspective is >>implementation details, but we cannot use that word since it's a reserved keyword, hence "hashset".
>
>Rather than use "hashset", which as you say is based on an implementation detail, I would prefer something like
>"integer_set" - what it's a set of.
Apologies for the confusion previously.
Upon further reflection, I recognize that the term "hash" in "hashset"
extends beyond mere representation of implementation.
It imparts key information about performance characteristics as well as functionality inherent to the set.
In hindsight, "hashset" does emerge as the most suitable terminology.
/Joel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2023-06-11 20:15:37 | Re: Do we want a hashset type? |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2023-06-11 15:03:04 | Re: Do we want a hashset type? |