Quoting Josh Berkus <firstname.lastname@example.org>: > Mischa, > > > Okay, although given the track record of page-based sampling for > > n-distinct, it's a bit like looking for your keys under the > streetlight, > > rather than in the alley where you dropped them :-) > > Bad analogy, but funny. Bad analogy? Page-sampling effort versus row-sampling effort, c'est moot. It's not good enough for stats to produce good behaviour on the average. Straight random sampling, page or row, is going to cause enough untrustworthy engine behaviour,for any %ages small enough to allow sampling from scratch at any time. I'm curious what the problem is with relying on a start-up plus incremental method, when the method in the distinct-sampling paper doesn't degenerate: you can start when the table is still empty. Constructing an index requires an initial full scan plus incremental update; what's the diff? > Unless, of course, we use indexes for sampling, which seems like a > *really > good* idea to me .... "distinct-sampling" applies for indexes, too. I started tracking the discussion of this a bit late. Smart method for this is in VLDB'92: Gennady Antoshenkov, "Random Sampling from Pseudo-ranked B+-trees". I don't think this is online anywhere, except if you have a DBLP membership. Does nybod else know better? Antoshenkov was the brains behind some of the really cool stuff in DEC Rdb (what eventually became Oracle). Compressed bitmap indices, parallel competing query plans, and smart handling of keys with hyperbolic distributions. -- Engineers think equations approximate reality. Physicists think reality approximates the equations. Mathematicians never make the connection.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly