On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2017-01-06 11:01:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> > On 2016-12-16 09:34:31 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: >> >> > To fix his issue, we need something like your 0001. Are you going to >> >> > polish that up soon here? >> >> >> >> Yes. >> > >> > I've two versions of a fix for this. One of them basically increases the >> > "spread" of buckets when the density goes up too much. It does so by >> > basically shifting the bucket number to the left (e.g. only every second >> > bucket can be the "primary" bucket for a hash value). The other >> > basically just replaces the magic constants in my previous POC patch >> > with slightly better documented constants. For me the latter works just >> > as well as the former, even though aesthetically/theoretically the >> > former sounds better. I'm inclined to commit the latter, at least for >> > now. >> >> Did you intend to attach the patches? > > No, I hadn't. You're interested in the "spreading" version?
I honestly have no opinion. If you're confident that you know what you want to do, it's fine with me if you just do it. If you want my opinion I probably need to see both patches and compare. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
