From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, "Joseph Shraibman" <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Hash joins vs small-integer join values |
Date: | 2007-06-01 03:51:43 |
Message-ID: | 87zm3kxrg0.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> The best idea I can come up with for the back branches is
> to make ExecHashGetBucketAndBatch do hash_any internally, say
hashany of a 4-byte value degenerates to pretty much just a call to mix().
Perhaps we should just expose a hash12() that takes three integers and calls
mix() on them like hash_any does.
The reason I'm thinking that is that we'll want to do the same thing for
bigint, float4, float8, etc.
And that fix you committed a while back to improve the catcache hash function
made a huge difference. Now I'm wondering if it shouldn't just be invoking
hash_any() or mix() too.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-01 04:00:55 | Re: Hash joins vs small-integer join values |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-06-01 03:47:49 | Re: Hash joins vs small-integer join values |