X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58D8ADAF8E for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:57:11 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70096-10 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:57:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from cassarossa.samfundet.no (cassarossa.samfundet.no [129.241.93.19]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FD1FDAFFA for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:57:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: from trofast.ipv6.sesse.net ([2001:700:300:dc03:20e:cff:fe36:a766] helo=trofast.sesse.net) by cassarossa.samfundet.no with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EUw4s-00085p-3l for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:57:11 +0200 Received: from sesse by trofast.sesse.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1EUw4x-000344-00 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:57:15 +0200 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:57:15 +0200 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Materializing a sequential scan Message-ID: <20051027005715.GA11032@uio.no> Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <20051019174544.GA32303@samfundet.no> <20051026213730.GA2295@uio.no> <12333.1130367975@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20051026232219.GA6390@uio.no> <12708.1130370782@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20051027001348.GA7756@uio.no> <13034.1130374263@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <13034.1130374263@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.14-rc5 on a x86_64 X-Message-Flag: Outlook? --> http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.01 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200510/407 X-Sequence-Number: 15175 On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 08:51:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I have some ideas in the back of my head about supporting > cross-data-type hashing. Essentially this would require that the hash > functions for two types be compatible in that they generate the same > hash value for two values that would be considered equal. OK, another entry for the TODO then. Anyhow, my query is now on about the same performance level with 8.1 as it was with 7.4 (or rather, a bit faster), so it's no longer a 8.1 blocker for us. Thanks. :-) /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/