Horton

Re: [POC] hash partitioning

Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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: 2017-05-19T05:01:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 2017/05/19 1:09, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:07 PM, amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I would suggest "non-zero positive", since that's what we are using in
>>> the documentation.
>>>
>>
>> Understood, Fixed in the attached version.
> 
> Why non-zero positive?  We do support zero for the remainder right?

Using "non-negative integers" (for remainders) was suggested upthread.

Thanks,
Amit

Commits

  1. Refactor get_partition_for_tuple a bit.

  2. Adopt Bob Jenkins' improved hash function for hash_any(). This changes the

  3. Improve hash_any() to use word-wide fetches when hashing suitably aligned