Re: [POC] hash partitioning
Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com>
From: amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>,
Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>,
Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-10-24T07:13:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- smhasher_test_on_hash_combine64.txt (text/plain)
- smhasher_test_on_hash_combine32.txt (text/plain)
- 0001-add-hash_combine-functions-in-SMHasher.patch (application/octet-stream) patch 0001
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 3:00 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2017-10-12 17:27:52 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> >> In other words, it's not utterly fixed in stone --- we invented
>> >> --load-via-partition-root primarily to cope with circumstances that
>> >> could change hash values --- but we sure don't want to be changing it
>> >> with any regularity, or for a less-than-excellent reason.
>> >
>> > Yea, that's what I expected. It'd probably good for somebody to run
>> > smhasher or such on the output of the combine function (or even better,
>> > on both the 32 and 64 bit variants) in that case.
>>
>> Not sure how that test suite works exactly, but presumably the
>> characteristics in practice will depend the behavior of the hash
>> functions used as input the combine function - so the behavior could
>> be good for an (int, int) key but bad for a (text, date) key, or
>> whatever.
>
> I don't think that's true, unless you have really bad hash functions on
> the the component hashes. A hash combine function can't really do
> anything about badly hashed input, what you want is that it doesn't
> *reduce* the quality of the hash by combining.
>
I tried to get suggested SMHasher[1] test result for the hash_combine
for 32-bit and 64-bit version.
SMHasher works on hash keys of the form {0}, {0,1}, {0,1,2}... up to
N=255, using 256-N as the seed, for the hash_combine testing we
needed two hash value to be combined, for that, I've generated 64
and 128-bit hash using cityhash functions[2] for the given smhasher
key then split in two part to test 32-bit and 64-bit hash_combine
function respectively. Attached patch for SMHasher code changes &
output of 32-bit and 64-bit hash_combine testing. Note that I have
skipped speed test this test which is irrelevant here.
By referring other hash function results [3], we can see that hash_combine
test results are not bad either.
Do let me know if current testing is not good enough or if you want me to do
more testing, thanks.
1] https://github.com/aappleby/smhasher
2] https://github.com/aappleby/smhasher/blob/master/src/CityTest.cpp
3] https://github.com/rurban/smhasher/tree/master/doc
Regards,
Amul
Commits
-
Add hash partitioning.
- 1aba8e651ac3 11.0 landed
-
Add sanity check for pg_proc.provariadic
- 35f059e9bdfb 11.0 landed
-
Add hash_combine64.
- b7f3eb31405f 11.0 landed
-
Make RelationGetPartitionDispatchInfo expand depth-first.
- 77b6b5e9ceca 11.0 cited
-
Introduce 64-bit hash functions with a 64-bit seed.
- 81c5e46c490e 11.0 cited
-
pg_dump: Add a --load-via-partition-root option.
- 23d7680d04b9 11.0 cited