Re: General purpose hashing func in pgbench

Greetings Ildar,

* Fabien COELHO (coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr) wrote:
> >>I noticed from the source of all human knowledege (aka Wikipedia:-)
> >>that there seems to be a murmur3 successor. Have you considered it?
> >>One good reason to skip it would be that the implementation is long
> >>and complex. I'm not sure about a 8-byte input simplified version.
> >Murmur2 naturally supports 8-byte data. Murmur3 has 32- and 128-bit
> >versions.
>
> Ok.
>
> So it would make sense to keep the 64 bit murmur2 version.
>
> Pgbench ints are 64 bits, seems logical to keep them that way, so 32 bits
> versions do not look too interesting.

This sounds like it was settled and the patch needs updating with these
changes, and with documentation and tests added.

While the commitfest is still pretty early on, I would suggest trying to
find time soon to update the patch and resubmit it, so it can get
another review and hopefully be included during this commitfest.

Also, I've not checked myself, but the patch appears to be failing for
http://commitfest.cputube.org/ so it likely also needs a rebase.

Thanks!

Stephen