Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAH2-WzmuFy88vjntz1+_AmMfLVcvzaVsn8NBucv1+CTeU1dDEQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification (Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:05 AM, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > I do not see a reason behind hashing the seed. It made some sense when I was XOR'ing it to mix. A uniform distribution of bits seemed desirable then, since random() won't use the most significant bit -- it generates random numbers in the range of 0 to 2^31-1. It does seem unnecessary now. > Also, I'd like to reformulate this paragraph. I understand what you want to say, but the sentence is incorrect. > + * The Bloom filter behaves non-deterministically when caller passes a random > + * seed value. This ensures that the same false positives will not occur from > + * one run to the next, which is useful to some callers. > Bloom filter behaves deterministically, but differently. This does not ensures any thing, but probably will give somethingwith hight probability. I agree that that's unclear. I should probably cut it down, and say something like "caller can pass a random seed to make it unlikely that the same false positives will occur from one run to the next". -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: