From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Dmitry G(dot) Mastrukov" <dmitry(at)taurussoft(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Alex Pilosov" <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: New data type: uniqueidentifier |
Date: | 2001-06-28 15:12:48 |
Message-ID: | 24320.993741168@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Dmitry G. Mastrukov" <dmitry(at)taurussoft(dot)org> writes:
> Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Dmitry G. Mastrukov wrote:
> I've marked "=" operator with HASH clause (and planner has started to
> use
> hash jons). But as I understand the right way is to create special hash
> function (may be wrapper for hash_any(), isn't it?) and register it for
> hash
> as for btree method.
>>
>> No. Currently, there's no way to specify a hash function for a given
>> operator, it always uses a builtin function that operates on memory
>> representation of a value.
> Strange. When I execute following query (slightly modified query from User's
> Guide chapter 7.6)
You're looking at support for hash indexes, which have nothing to do
with hash joins.
*Why* they have nothing to do with hash joins, I dunno. You'd think
that using the same hash functions for both would be a good idea.
But that's not how it's set up at the moment.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Moore | 2001-06-28 15:33:45 | Re: Backup and Recovery |
Previous Message | Ilan Fait | 2001-06-28 15:11:45 | how to monitor/examine the database |