| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash Functions |
| Date: | 2017-05-13 04:52:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1K1LKQo-X+pnJMPUMft1MNk-wYLWBuEg=XPCnh8=wEYmQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Maybe a shorter argument for hash partitioning is that not one but two
> different people proposed patches for it within months of the initial
> partitioning patch going in. When multiple people are thinking about
> implementing the same feature almost immediately after the
> prerequisite patches land, that's a good clue that it's a desirable
> feature. So I think we should try to solve the problems, rather than
> giving up.
>
Can we think of defining separate portable hash functions which can be
used for the purpose of hash partitioning?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2017-05-13 06:41:09 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2017-05-13 04:42:01 | Re: multi-column range partition constraint |