Re: hash index improving v3

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>
Cc: Xiao Meng <mx(dot)cogito(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: hash index improving v3
Date: 2008-09-04 20:06:23
Message-ID: 29386.1220558783@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
> I performed code review and see my comments.

Thanks for the comments. I've incorporated all of these into an updated
patch that I'm preparing, except for

> Why not define new datatype for example HashKey instead of uint32?

This seems like a good idea, but I think we should do it as a separate,
cosmetic-cleanup patch. It'll touch a lot of parts of access/hash/ that
the current patch doesn't need to change, and thus complicate reviewing.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-09-04 20:28:34 Re: hash index improving v3
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-09-04 20:06:18 Re: Need more reviewers!

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-09-04 20:28:34 Re: hash index improving v3
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-09-04 16:57:04 Re: [PATCHES] hash index improving v3