. 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 database schema
Date: Thu
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Marc Mamin m.ma...@intershop.de 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
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
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Tom Lane 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, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Well, the standard syntax apparently aims to reduce the number of
returned rows, which ORDER BY does not. Maybe you could do it
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Qi Huang huangq...@hotmail.com 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
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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 |
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 ... the
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 that we
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
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de 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
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net 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
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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
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-desired feature, but
AFAIR the user demand for it has been about nil. So I'm
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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
On 03/21/2012 11:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com 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
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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
2012/3/19 Qi Huang huangq...@hotmail.com:
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
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 Huang huangq...@hotmail.com:
I
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
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com 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 j...@agliodbs.com 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
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 8:48 PM, HuangQi huangq...@gmail.com 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.
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 dan...@heroku.com wrote:
On
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 8:50 AM, HuangQi huangq...@gmail.com 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
(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
27 matches
Mail list logo
