Re: Should HashSetOp go away

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should HashSetOp go away
Date: 2025-10-31 19:22:27
Message-ID: 3858818.1761938547@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> Here's a pair of patches to try to do better. The first one
> is concerned with getting more realistic size estimates for
> TupleHashTables in the planner. The second is some mop-up
> that's been pending for a long time in the same area, namely
> getting rid of "long int" field types in Plan nodes.

Meh ... cfbot found a compiler warning that I'd not seen locally.
v2 attached silences that, and I twiddled a couple of comments.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-Improve-planner-s-estimates-of-tuple-hash-table-s.patch text/x-diff 18.3 KB
v2-0002-Change-long-numGroups-fields-to-be-Cardinality-i..patch text/x-diff 19.2 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Euler Taveira 2025-10-31 19:46:14 Re: [PATCH] Add Windows support for backtrace_functions (MSVC only)
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2025-10-31 19:12:18 Re: Should we update the random_page_cost default value?