Re: [HACKERS] 9.1 support for hashing arrays
Robert Haas wrote: On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: I believe, however, that applying this will invalidate the contents of any hash indexes on array types that anyone has built using 9.1beta1. Do we need to do something about that? Like bumping catversion? Sure. Although note that the system catalogs are not actually changing, which goes to someone else's recent point about catversion getting bumped for things other than changes in the things for which the cat in catversion is an abbreviation. I would probably complain about that, except you already did it post-beta1: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=9bb6d9795253bb521f81c626fea49a704a369ca9 Unfortunately, I was unable to make that omelet without breaking some eggs. :-( Possibly Bruce will feel like adding a check to pg_upgrade for the case. I wouldn't bother myself though. ?It seems quite unlikely that anyone's depending on the feature yet. I'll leave that to you, Bruce, and whoever else wants to weigh in to hammer that one out. Oh, you are worried someone might have stored hash indexes with the old catalog format? Seems like something we might mention in the next beta release announcement, but nothing more. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1 support for hashing arrays
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: I believe, however, that applying this will invalidate the contents of any hash indexes on array types that anyone has built using 9.1beta1. Do we need to do something about that? Like bumping catversion? Sure. Although note that the system catalogs are not actually changing, which goes to someone else's recent point about catversion getting bumped for things other than changes in the things for which the cat in catversion is an abbreviation. I would probably complain about that, except you already did it post-beta1: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=9bb6d9795253bb521f81c626fea49a704a369ca9 Unfortunately, I was unable to make that omelet without breaking some eggs. :-( Possibly Bruce will feel like adding a check to pg_upgrade for the case. I wouldn't bother myself though. It seems quite unlikely that anyone's depending on the feature yet. I'll leave that to you, Bruce, and whoever else wants to weigh in to hammer that one out. -- 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
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1 support for hashing arrays
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote: Doh! I forgot one important piece of this algorithm - it is necessary to initialise the result to something non-zero at the start so that adding leading nulls to an array changes the final result. Looks reasonable. I believe, however, that applying this will invalidate the contents of any hash indexes on array types that anyone has built using 9.1beta1. Do we need to do something about that? -- 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
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1 support for hashing arrays
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: I believe, however, that applying this will invalidate the contents of any hash indexes on array types that anyone has built using 9.1beta1. Do we need to do something about that? Like bumping catversion? I would probably complain about that, except you already did it post-beta1: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=9bb6d9795253bb521f81c626fea49a704a369ca9 Possibly Bruce will feel like adding a check to pg_upgrade for the case. I wouldn't bother myself though. It seems quite unlikely that anyone's depending on the feature yet. 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
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1 support for hashing arrays
On 19 May 2011 15:33, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote: The algorithm for this was discussed in the original thread (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg02050.php) but I don't that think a satisfactory conclusion was really reached. In particular, it is way too easy to come up with pathological cases that defeat the hashing algorithm, for example: CREATE TABLE foo(a int[][]); INSERT INTO foo SELECT array_fill(i, ARRAY[8,8]) FROM generate_series(1,1) g(i); All 1 arrays are different, but they all have the same hash value (0), so if the query optimiser chooses to hash the arrays, the performance will be very poor. A few people on that thread (myself included - http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg00123.php) suggested using the multiply-by-31 algorithm but I think I failed to properly make the case for it. Having given it some further thought, I think there are some very sound mathematical reasons why that algorithm performs well: The algorithm is to take the current hash total, multiply it by 31 and then add on the hash of the next element. The final result is a polynomial sum, where each element's hash value is multiplied by a different power of 31. Since this is all modulo 2^32 arithmetic, the powers of 31 will eventually start repeating, and at that point the hashing algorithm could be defeated by transpositions. However, the number 31 has the property that its powers don't repeat for a long time - the powers of 31 modulo 2^32 form a cyclic group with a multiplicative order of 2^27 (134217728). In other words 31^134217728 = 1 mod 2^32, and there are no smaller (strictly positive) powers of 31 for which this is the case. So the multiply-by-31 algorithm is only vulnerable to transpositions once the arrays reach 134217728 elements. For all smaller arrays, each array element's hash value is multiplied by a number different number from all the other elements, and since all the multipliers are odd numbers, *all* the individual bits from each element's hash value are distributed (differently) in the final value. Of course there are still going to be pathological cases, but they are very difficult to construct deliberately, and extremely unlikely to occur randomly. ISTM that this has all the properties of a good hashing algorithm (possibly the Java folks did a similar analysis and came to the same conclusion). Yes, I never was very happy with the way that we were doing this, and I think you make a coherent argument for why we should do it differently. Doh! I forgot one important piece of this algorithm - it is necessary to initialise the result to something non-zero at the start so that adding leading nulls to an array changes the final result. Regards, Dean array-hashing2.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] 9.1 support for hashing arrays
The algorithm for this was discussed in the original thread (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg02050.php) but I don't that think a satisfactory conclusion was really reached. In particular, it is way too easy to come up with pathological cases that defeat the hashing algorithm, for example: CREATE TABLE foo(a int[][]); INSERT INTO foo SELECT array_fill(i, ARRAY[8,8]) FROM generate_series(1,1) g(i); All 1 arrays are different, but they all have the same hash value (0), so if the query optimiser chooses to hash the arrays, the performance will be very poor. A few people on that thread (myself included - http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg00123.php) suggested using the multiply-by-31 algorithm but I think I failed to properly make the case for it. Having given it some further thought, I think there are some very sound mathematical reasons why that algorithm performs well: The algorithm is to take the current hash total, multiply it by 31 and then add on the hash of the next element. The final result is a polynomial sum, where each element's hash value is multiplied by a different power of 31. Since this is all modulo 2^32 arithmetic, the powers of 31 will eventually start repeating, and at that point the hashing algorithm could be defeated by transpositions. However, the number 31 has the property that its powers don't repeat for a long time - the powers of 31 modulo 2^32 form a cyclic group with a multiplicative order of 2^27 (134217728). In other words 31^134217728 = 1 mod 2^32, and there are no smaller (strictly positive) powers of 31 for which this is the case. So the multiply-by-31 algorithm is only vulnerable to transpositions once the arrays reach 134217728 elements. For all smaller arrays, each array element's hash value is multiplied by a number different number from all the other elements, and since all the multipliers are odd numbers, *all* the individual bits from each element's hash value are distributed (differently) in the final value. Of course there are still going to be pathological cases, but they are very difficult to construct deliberately, and extremely unlikely to occur randomly. ISTM that this has all the properties of a good hashing algorithm (possibly the Java folks did a similar analysis and came to the same conclusion). Regards, Dean array-hashing.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
