On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 12:28 PM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 9:52 PM Ashutosh Bapat > <ashutosh.bapat....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 1:00 PM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm feeling good about this version, but let me know if you have any > > > further thoughts / comments. > > > > Thanks for incorporating the changes and fixing initial hash table size. > > > > + #define EC_DERIVES_HASH_THRESHOLD 32 > > > > Given that the constant is being used only at a single place, we don't > > need a macro. But I am not against the macro. > > Yeah, let's keep it, because it documents well. > > > PFA patch set with some minor edits in 0003. Also I have edited commit > > message of 0001 and 0002. > > > > In the commit messages of 0002, > > 1. mentioning that the lookup happens only for join clause generation > > is not accurate, since we lookup EM = constant clauses as well which > > are not join clauses. > > 2. In the second paragraph em1 and em2 are mentioned without > > mentioning what are they. I have rephrased it so as to avoid > > mentioning names of structure member. > > Incorporated, thanks. > > I'll plan to commit these tomorrow barring objections.
I’ve now marked this as committed after pushing the patches earlier today. I realize the CF entry was originally about the project to reduce memory usage during partitionwise join planning, but we ended up committing something else. I suppose we can create a new entry if and when we pick that original work back up. -- Thanks, Amit Langote
