| From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Postgres general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| Date: | 2005-01-13 14:48:51 |
| Message-ID: | 1105627731.14493.18.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
[snip]
> The database could be clever and implement the same kind of sampling vacuum
> does. That picks a random sampling of pages from the table without using an
> index. But there's no way to implement the same kind of behaviour from the
> user-visible features.
... meaning perhaps a new keyword accepted by SELECT, something like
"SAMPLE 1000" ? Which would mean sample records in a 1:1000 ratio ?
Would simplify (and probably speed up a lot) some estimating queries...
Cheers,
Csaba.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Terry Lee Tucker | 2005-01-13 14:51:15 | Re: Trace triggers |
| Previous Message | Marek Lewczuk | 2005-01-13 14:14:36 | Trace triggers |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-13 15:29:16 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-01-13 14:04:46 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |