Re: Hash Joins vs. Bloom Filters / take 2

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hash Joins vs. Bloom Filters / take 2
Date: 2018-10-01 07:15:42
Message-ID: 20181001071542.GJ11712@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 07:04:41PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> After reviewing the thread I also agree that this should be pushed to
> 2018-09, so I have done so.
>
> I'm very excited by this patch, though. In general I agree with Peter that
> a higher rate of false positives is acceptable to save memory. I also don't
> see any reason why this can't be tuned with a parameter. Start with a
> conservative default and allow the user to adjust as desired.

Not much has happened since last March. The patch has conflicts in
regression tests. Thomas, you are registered as a reviewer of this
patch. Are you planning to look at it?

This is moved to next CF, waiting on author per the rotten bits.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-10-01 07:17:57 Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2018-10-01 07:10:20 Re: hostorder and failover_timeout for libpq