Re: Hashable custom types - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Atri Sharma
Subject Re: Hashable custom types
Date
Msg-id CAOeZVieerp78uDL6on9XSJygciUway9cHDmCOmoxir0nsPuSLw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Hashable custom types  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Hashable custom types  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers




The plain UNION code supports either sorting or hashing, but
we've not gotten around to supporting a sort-based approach
to recursive UNION.  I'm not convinced that it's worth doing ...

                        regards, tom lane



Without sorting, isnt the scope of a recursive UNION with custom datatypes pretty restrictive?

As is, even the sorting shall be a bit restrictive due to the costs associated. I feel what David has suggested upthread should be good. Maybe an experimental patch with a workload that should give a load factor 1 for the hash table should prove some performance points.

Even if thats not the case, we should really do something to improve the scope of usability of recursive UNION with custom types.

Regards,

Atri
 

--
Regards,
 
Atri
l'apprenant

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: includedir_internal headers are not self-contained
Next
From: Vladimir Koković
Date:
Subject: make check-world problem