On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Marc Mamin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here is something we'd like to have:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-01/msg00650.php
>
> As we are quite busy and this issue hasn't a high priority, we haven't
> followed it until now :-(
>
> I'm only a Postgres
i Huang
Sent: Samstag, 24. März 2012 05:20
To: cbbro...@gmail.com; kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; and...@anarazel.de;
alvhe...@commandprompt.com; neil.con...@gmail.com; dan...@heroku.com;
j...@agliodbs.com
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network databa
t;
> > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:17:01 -0400
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database
> > schema
> > From: cbbro...@gmail.com
> > To: kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov
> > CC: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2
> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:17:01 -0400
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database schema
> From: cbbro...@gmail.com
> To: kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov
> CC: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Kevin Grittner
> wr
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> Well, the standard syntax apparently aims to reduce the number of
>>> returned rows, which ORDER BY does not. Maybe you could do it
>>> with ORDER BY .. LIMIT, but the idea here I think is that
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Well, the standard syntax apparently aims to reduce the number of
>> returned rows, which ORDER BY does not. Maybe you could do it
>> with ORDER BY .. LIMIT, but the idea here I think is that we'd
>> like to sample the table without reading all of it firs
Robert Haas writes:
> Well, there's something mighty tempting about having a way to say
> "just give me a random sample of the blocks and I'll worry about
> whether that represents a random sample of the rows".
> It's occurred to me a few times that it's pretty unfortunate you can't
> do that wit
On 03/21/2012 11:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
Well, the standard syntax apparently aims to reduce the number of
returned rows, which ORDER BY does not. Maybe you could do it with
ORDER BY .. LIMIT, but the idea here I think
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Well, the standard syntax apparently aims to reduce the number of
>> returned rows, which ORDER BY does not. Maybe you could do it with
>> ORDER BY .. LIMIT, but the idea here I think is that we'd like to
>> sample the ta
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database schema
>
>
>
> On 03/21/2012 10:47 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié mar 21 11:35:54 -0300 2012:
> >
> >> Now that would all be fine if this were a widely-desi
Robert Haas writes:
> Well, the standard syntax apparently aims to reduce the number of
> returned rows, which ORDER BY does not. Maybe you could do it with
> ORDER BY .. LIMIT, but the idea here I think is that we'd like to
> sample the table without reading all of it first, so that seems to
> m
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 03/21/2012 10:47 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I disagree with there being zero interest ... the "order by random()"
>> stuff does come up occasionally.
> Presumably the reason that's not good enough is that is scans the whole
> table (as well as being non-portable)?
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 03:47:23 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié mar 21 11:35:54 -0300 2012:
>> > Now that would all be fine if this were a widely-desired feature, but
>> > AFAIR the user demand for i
On 03/21/2012 10:47 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié mar 21 11:35:54 -0300 2012:
Now that would all be fine if this were a widely-desired feature, but
AFAIR the user demand for it has been about nil. So I'm leaning to
the position that we don't want it.
I di
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 03:47:23 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié mar 21 11:35:54 -0300 2012:
> > Now that would all be fine if this were a widely-desired feature, but
> > AFAIR the user demand for it has been about nil. So I'm leaning to
> > the position tha
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié mar 21 11:35:54 -0300 2012:
> Now that would all be fine if this were a widely-desired feature, but
> AFAIR the user demand for it has been about nil. So I'm leaning to
> the position that we don't want it.
I disagree with there being zero interest ... th
Robert Haas writes:
> One thing we should probably try to establish before you get started
> working on this is whether people want the feature, which is basically
> the ability to write something like this in the FROM clause of a
> query:
> table_name TABLESAMPLE { BERNOULLI | SYSTEM } ( sample_
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Qi Huang wrote:
> Thanks so much, Neil.
> I think I kind of understand the situation for now. The implementation
> posted by Neil was for the purpose of the talk, thus rushed and may not be
> up to st andard of Postgres Community. Also Neil mentioned the PRNG stat
> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:12:45 -0700> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea
> --- Social Network database schema
> From: neil.con...@gmail.com
> To: huangq...@hotmail.com
> CC: dan...@heroku.com; j...@agliodbs.com; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
>
> 2012/3/19 Qi
2012/3/19 Qi Huang :
>> I actually tried to find out, personally...not sure if I was searching
>> wrongly, but searching for TABLESAMPLE did not yield a cornucopia of
>> useful conversations at the right time in history (~2007), even when
>> the search is given a broad date-horizon (all), so I, too
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > On 3/18/12 8:11 PM, HuangQi wrote:
> >> The implementation seems to be done quite fully. There is even a patch
> >> file. Why is the implementation not added into the release of Postgres? As
> >> so much has already being done, what could
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 3/18/12 8:11 PM, HuangQi wrote:
>> The implementation seems to be done quite fully. There is even a patch
>> file. Why is the implementation not added into the release of Postgres? As
>> so much has already being done, what could I do in thi
On 3/18/12 8:11 PM, HuangQi wrote:
> The implementation seems to be done quite fully. There is even a patch
> file. Why is the implementation not added into the release of Postgres? As
> so much has already being done, what could I do in this case for the Gsoc?
That would be good for you to resear
The implementation seems to be done quite fully. There is even a patch
file. Why is the implementation not added into the release of Postgres? As
so much has already being done, what could I do in this case for the Gsoc?
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 201
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 8:48 PM, HuangQi wrote:
> About the second topic, so currently TABLESAMPLE is not implemented
> inside Postgres? I didn't see this query before, but I googled it just now
> and the query seems very weird and
> interesting. http://www.fotia.co.uk/fotia/DY.18.TheTableSamp
(Sorry, Daniel. Forgot to cc pgsql-hackers.)
Hi, Daniel
Thanks a lot for your response.
As I can see for now, in my FYP, as the acyclic schema has the property
that it has a join tree. I will check how many join trees it has and
investigate any best option for the RSN schema. If it does hav
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 8:50 AM, HuangQi wrote:
> I'm quite glad if you could offer me some advices. Thanks a lot for your
> help!
Thank you for your interest! However, I am a little confused precisely
what you are thinking about implementing. Are there particular access
methods or operators
27 matches
Mail list logo
