Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wzk7L5a6D8-kU_zh3eMzHkcRpMzkst=K9LBmrHbUkEHRpQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am also wondering whether this patch should consider
> 81c5e46c490e2426db243eada186995da5bb0ba7 as a way of obtaining
> multiple hash values.  I suppose that's probably inferior to what is
> already being done on performance grounds, but I'll just throw out a
> mention of it here all the same in case it was overlooked or the
> relevance not spotted...

Well, we sometimes only want one hash value. This happens when we're
very short on memory (especially relative to the estimated final size
of the set), so it's a fairly common requirement. And, we have a
convenient way to get a second independent uint32 hash function now
(murmurhash32()).

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgbench stuck with 100% cpu usage