"Dmitry G. Mastrukov" <dmitry(at)taurussoft(dot)org> writes:
> Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Dmitry G. Mastrukov wrote:
> I've marked "=" operator with HASH clause (and planner has started to
> hash jons). But as I understand the right way is to create special hash
> function (may be wrapper for hash_any(), isn't it?) and register it for
> as for btree method.
>> No. Currently, there's no way to specify a hash function for a given
>> operator, it always uses a builtin function that operates on memory
>> representation of a value.
> Strange. When I execute following query (slightly modified query from User's
> Guide chapter 7.6)
You're looking at support for hash indexes, which have nothing to do
with hash joins.
*Why* they have nothing to do with hash joins, I dunno. You'd think
that using the same hash functions for both would be a good idea.
But that's not how it's set up at the moment.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: John Moore||Date: 2001-06-28 15:33:45|
|Subject: Re: Backup and Recovery|
|Previous:||From: Ilan Fait||Date: 2001-06-28 15:11:45|
|Subject: how to monitor/examine the database|