Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions
| От | amul sul |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAAJ_b96FwSNT7fHBPzNo1ySn30s2FnFdz+BhC+EcjddDBw7NKw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Attached is a quick sketch of how this could perhaps be done (ignoring
> for the moment the relatively-boring opclass pushups).
Here it is with some relatively-boring opclass pushups added. I just
did the int4 bit; the same thing will need to be done, uh, 35 more
times. But you get the gist. No, not that kind of gist.
I will work on this.
I have a small query, what if I want a cache entry with extended hash function instead standard one, I might require that while adding hash_array_extended function? Do you think we need to extend lookup_type_cache() as well?
Regards,
Amul
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: