| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A better way than tweaking NTUP_PER_BUCKET |
| Date: | 2013-06-26 17:19:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20130626171937.GE5952@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Atri Sharma (atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> Right, let me look.Although, I am pretty busy atm with ordered set
> functions, so will get it done maybe last week of this month.
Isn't it currently the last week of this month? :) I'm guessing you
mean July.
> Another thing I believe in is that we should have multiple hashing
> functions for bloom filters, which generate different probability
> values so that the coverage is good.
I really don't see that happening, to be honest.. I think it would be
interesting to try some of the surrogate-additional-hashing that I
described.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Atri Sharma | 2013-06-26 17:21:37 | Re: A better way than tweaking NTUP_PER_BUCKET |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2013-06-26 16:48:41 | Re: Review: Patch to compute Max LSN of Data Pages |