| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Change GUC hashtable to use simplehash? |
| Date: | 2023-11-22 20:56:21 |
| Message-ID: | 2330615.1700686581@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2023-11-21 16:42:55 +0700, John Naylor wrote:
>> The strlen call required for hashbytes() is not free. The lack of
>> mixing in the (probably inlined after 0001) previous hash function can
>> remedied directly, as in the attached:
> I doubt this is a good hashfunction. For short strings, sure, but after
> that... I don't think it makes sense to reduce the internal state of a hash
> function to something this small.
GUC names are just about always short, though, so I'm not sure you've
made your point? At worst, maybe this with 64-bit state instead of 32?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2023-11-22 21:00:03 | Re: psql not responding to SIGINT upon db reconnection |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-11-22 20:52:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Changing references of password encryption to hashing |