On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:31 PM John Naylor <johncnaylo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Attached is a rough start with Andres's earlier ideas, to get > something concrete out there.
While looking at the assembly out of curiosity, I found a couple bugs in the split API that I've fixed locally. I think the path forward is: - performance measurements with both byte-at-a-time and word-at-a-time, once I make sure they're fixed - based on the above decide which one is best for guc_name_hash - clean up hash function implementation - test with with a new guc_name_compare (using what we learned from my guc_name_eq) and see how well we do with keeping dynahash vs. simplehash Separately, for string_hash: - run SMHasher and see about reincorporating length in the calculation. v5 should be a clear improvement in collision behavior over the current guc_name_hash, but we need to make sure it's at least as good as hash_bytes, and ideally not lose anything compared to standard fast_hash.
