| From: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hashable custom types |
| Date: | 2014-04-26 17:39:15 |
| Message-ID: | CAOeZVieerp78uDL6on9XSJygciUway9cHDmCOmoxir0nsPuSLw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The plain UNION code supports either sorting or hashing, but
> we've not gotten around to supporting a sort-based approach
> to recursive UNION. I'm not convinced that it's worth doing ...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
>
Without sorting, isnt the scope of a recursive UNION with custom datatypes
pretty restrictive?
As is, even the sorting shall be a bit restrictive due to the costs
associated. I feel what David has suggested upthread should be good. Maybe
an experimental patch with a workload that should give a load factor 1 for
the hash table should prove some performance points.
Even if thats not the case, we should really do something to improve the
scope of usability of recursive UNION with custom types.
Regards,
Atri
--
Regards,
Atri
*l'apprenant*
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vladimir Koković | 2014-04-26 17:39:40 | make check-world problem |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-26 17:22:13 | Re: includedir_internal headers are not self-contained |