| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, "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>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash Functions |
| Date: | 2017-08-03 21:50:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20170803215005.uaqj3v5v7biwwwo3@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2017-08-03 17:43:44 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> For me, the basic point here is that we need a set of hash functions
> for hash partitioning that are different than what we use for hash
> indexes and hash joins -- otherwise when we hash partition a table and
> create hash indexes on each partition, those indexes will have nasty
> clustering. Partitionwise hash joins will have similar problems. So,
> a new set of hash functions specifically for hash partitioning is
> quite desirable.
Couldn't that just as well solved by being a bit smarter with an IV? I
doubt we want to end up with different hashfunctions for sharding,
partitioning, hashjoins (which seems to form a hierarchy). Having a
working hash-combine function, or even better a hash API that can
continue to use the hash's internal state, seems a more scalable
solution.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-03 21:50:17 | Re: Add Roman numeral conversion to to_number |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-03 21:43:44 | Re: Hash Functions |