Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> writes:
> On that subject, while looking at hashfunc.c, I spotted that
> hashint8() has a very obvious deficiency, which causes disastrous
> performance with certain inputs:
Well, if you're trying to squeeze 64 bits into a 32-bit result, there
are always going to be collisions somewhere.
> I'd suggest using hash_uint32() for values that fit in a 32-bit
> integer and hash_any() otherwise.
Perhaps, but this'd break existing hash indexes. That might not be
a fatal objection, but if we're going to put users through that
I'd like to think a little bigger in terms of the benefits we get.
I've thought for some time that we needed to move to 64-bit hash function
results, because the size of problem that's reasonable to use a hash join
or hash aggregation for keeps increasing. Maybe we should do that and fix
hashint8 as a side effect.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
