Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-12-19 22:03:55 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> What I am thinking is not using all of those fields in their raw form to
>> calculate the hash value. IE: something analogous to:
>> hash_any(SharedBufHash, (rot(forkNum, 2) | dbNode) ^ relNode) << 32 |
>> blockNum)
>>
>> perhaps that actual code wouldn't work, but I don't see why we couldn't do
>> something similar... am I missing something?
> I don't think that'd improve anything. Jenkin's hash does have a quite
> mixing properties, I don't believe that the above would improve the
> quality of the hash.
I think what Jim is suggesting is to intentionally degrade the quality of
the hash in order to let it be calculated a tad faster. We could do that
but I doubt it would be a win, especially in systems with lots of buffers.
IIRC, when we put in Jenkins hashing to replace the older homebrew hash
function, it improved performance even though the hash itself was slower.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
