From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |
Date: | 2017-10-12 14:05:26 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob3-kMhdt2Xrp4dnvMByWTZMX5Q=hxiNSaGGPm8sidmYQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:08 AM, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> How about combining high 32 bits and the low 32 bits separately as shown below?
>
> static inline uint64
> hash_combine64(uint64 a, uint64 b)
> {
> return (((uint64) hash_combine((uint32) a >> 32, (uint32) b >> 32) << 32)
> | hash_combine((unit32) a, (unit32) b));
> }
I doubt that's the best approach, but I don't have something specific
to recommend.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-10-12 14:06:44 | Re: Discussion on missing optimizations |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-10-12 14:00:47 | Re: Discussion on missing optimizations |