Horton

Re: Hash Functions

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>, amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-05-13T04:52:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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

Commits

  1. Introduce 64-bit hash functions with a 64-bit seed.

  2. Create a "sort support" interface API for faster sorting.

  3. Add seven kanji characters defined in the Windows 950 codepage to our