Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> writes:
> Are there any changes you'd like to see for the Bloom patch [0]? I'd like
> to see about getting that committed for v17. One thing that crossed my
> mind is creating a combined list/filter that transparently created a filter
> when necessary (for reuse elsewhere), but I'm not sure that's v17 material.
Yeah, that thought occurred to me too, but I think we ought to have a
few more use-cases in view before trying to write an API.
As for the patch, I agree it could go into v17, but I think there is
still a little bit of work to do:
* The magic constants (crossover list length and bloom filter size)
need some testing to see if there are better values. They should
probably be made into named #defines, too. I suspect, with little
proof, that the bloom filter size isn't particularly critical --- but
I know we pulled the crossover of 1000 out of thin air, and I have
no certainty that it's even within an order of magnitude of being a
good choice.
* Code needs more than zero comments.
* Is it worth trying to make a subroutine, or at least a macro,
so as not to have 2 copies of the code?
regards, tom lane
