From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org>, 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: | 2023-06-10 20:26:39 |
Message-ID: | bd72309a-176a-765e-5a9e-f132d60db6ff@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/10/23 17:46, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 2023-06-09 Fr 07:56, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023, at 13:33, jian he wrote:
>> > Hi, I am quite new about C.....
>> > The following function I have 3 questions.
>> > 1. 7691,4201, I assume they are just random prime ints?
>>
>> Yes, 7691 and 4201 are likely chosen as random prime numbers.
>> In hash functions, prime numbers are often used to help in evenly
>> distributing
>> the hash values across the range and reduce the chance of collisions.
>>
>> > 2. I don't get the last return set, even the return type should be bool.
>>
>> Thanks, you found a mistake!
>>
>> The line
>>
>> return set;
>>
>> is actually unreachable and should be removed.
>> The function will always return either true or false within the while
>> loop and
>> never reach the final return statement.
>>
>> I've attached a new incremental patch with this fix.
>>
>> > 3. I don't understand 13 in hash = (hash + 13) % set->maxelements;
>>
>> The value 13 is used for linear probing [1] in handling hash collisions.
>> Linear probing sequentially checks the next slot in the array when a
>> collision
>> occurs. 13, being a small prime number not near a power of 2, helps in
>> uniformly
>> distributing data and ensuring that all slots are probed, as it's
>> relatively prime
>> to the hash table size.
>>
>> Hm, I realise we actually don't ensure the hash table size and step
>> size (13)
>> are coprime. I've fixed that in the attached patch as well.
>>
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_probing
>>
>>
>
>
> Maybe you can post a full patch as well as incremental?
>
I wonder if we should keep discussing this extension here, considering
it's going to be out of core (at least for now). Not sure how many
pgsql-hackers are interested in this, so maybe we should just move it to
github PRs or something ...
> Stylistically I think you should reduce reliance on magic numbers (like
> 13). Probably need some #define's?
>
Yeah, absolutely. This was just pure laziness.
regard
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-06-10 20:31:17 | Re: Skip collecting decoded changes of already-aborted transactions |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-06-10 20:24:24 | Re: abi-compliance-checker |