| From: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash Functions |
| Date: | 2017-05-12 19:00:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20170512190019.GJ23853@aart.rice.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 02:23:14PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> What about integers? I think we're already assuming two's-complement
> arithmetic, which I think means that the only problem with making the
> hash values portable for integers is big-endian vs. little-endian.
> That's sounds solveable-ish.
>
xxhash produces identical hashes independent for big-endian and little-
endian.
https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash
Regards,
Ken
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-12 19:38:02 | Re: Hash Functions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-05-12 18:45:47 | Re: Hash Functions |