On 2017-01-06 11:01:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2016-12-16 09:34:31 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > >> > To fix his issue, we need something like your 0001. Are you going to > >> > polish that up soon here? > >> > >> Yes. > > > > I've two versions of a fix for this. One of them basically increases the > > "spread" of buckets when the density goes up too much. It does so by > > basically shifting the bucket number to the left (e.g. only every second > > bucket can be the "primary" bucket for a hash value). The other > > basically just replaces the magic constants in my previous POC patch > > with slightly better documented constants. For me the latter works just > > as well as the former, even though aesthetically/theoretically the > > former sounds better. I'm inclined to commit the latter, at least for > > now. > > Did you intend to attach the patches?
No, I hadn't. You're interested in the "spreading" version? Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
