>Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> writes:
>> I was looking at the code in hash_record()
>> of src/backend/utils/adt/rowtypes.c
>> It seems if nulls[i] is true, we don't need to look up the hash function.
>I don't think this is worth changing. It complicates the logic,
>rendering it unlike quite a few other functions written in the same
>style. In cases where the performance actually matters, the hash
>function is cached across multiple calls anyway. You might save
>something if you have many calls in a query and not one of them
>receives a non-null input, but how likely is that?
I disagree.
I think that is worth changing. The fact of complicating the logic
is irrelevant.
But maybe the v2 attached would be a little better.
My doubt is the result calc when nulls are true.
regards,
Ranier Vilela
