Hi,
> On Apr 23, 2026, at 07:33, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, it doesn't make sense to repeatedly perform a linear search over
> the array to check if NULL matches anything in the array. Let's just
> do that once when we build the hash table and reuse that cached value
> whenever we see a NULL. We can skip that step with strict functions
> since we'll short-circuit earlier.
>
> A patch for that is attached.
Thanks for working on this. Overall, this version looks good to me, and
I'm fine with the current approach. One possible improvement, though not
a blocker, would be to defer the lhs-NULL handling until we actually
encounter the first NULL on the lhs. That could avoid a bit of extra
work in the common case where the lhs contains no NULLs. That said, I
think the current implementation is perfectly OK as-is.
> IMO it's unrealistic to assume we can do anything sane with an
> equality function that always returns NULL.
>
> I really doubt it's worth troubling over that. If we did want to do
> something, then it would be more efficient to probe the hash table
> directly after we insert a Datum and verify we can find it again. If
> we can't find any value we just inserted, mark the entire table as
> broken and have it so we check for that and do a linear search.
I tend to agree. Even if such a case can be constructed, it seems rare
enough that I am not sure it is worth adding more complexity, or extra
overhead in the common hashed SAOP path, to handle it in this patch. I
think we can revisit that separately if a concrete case turns up that
seems worth looking into.
--
Best regards,
Chengpeng Yan
