From: | Roman Kononov <kononov(at)ftml(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #4748: hash join and sort-merge join make different results |
Date: | 2009-04-04 05:13:54 |
Message-ID: | 49D6EC92.1090609@ftml.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2009-04-03 23:32 Tom Lane said the following:
> Roman Kononov <kononov(at)ftml(dot)net> writes:
>> On 2009-04-03 14:57 Tom Lane said the following:
>>> I think we could fix this by having interval_hash() duplicate the
>>> total-span calculation done by interval_cmp_internal, and then return
>>> the hash of the resulting TimeOffset. This is going to break existing
>>> hash indexes on intervals, but there seems little choice...
>
>> Consider hashing the result of justify_interval().
>
> Uh, what's your point? We have to match interval_eq, not
> justify_interval.
For any two intervals a and b, saying that interval_cmp_interval(a,b)==0
is exactly the same as saying that (aj.month==bj.month && aj.day==bj.day
&& aj.time==bj.time), where aj=justify_interval(a) and
bj=justify_interval(b). Therefore, instead of hashing
interval_cmp_value() you can hash justify_interval(), where
interval_cmp_value() is the transformation of intervals in
interval_cmp_interval().
You said that hashing interval_cmp_value() breaks existing hash indexes.
Hashing "justified" intervals avoids such breaking in some cases.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-04 05:25:02 | Re: BUG #4748: hash join and sort-merge join make different results |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-04 05:02:32 | Re: BUG #4748: hash join and sort-merge join make different results |