From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, KONDO Mitsumasa <kondo(dot)mitsumasa(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: gaussian distribution pgbench |
Date: | 2014-03-01 16:48:42 |
Message-ID: | 3144.1393692522@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Seems that in the review so far, Fabien has focused mainly in the
> mathematical properties of the new random number generation. That seems
> perfectly fine, but no comment has been made about the chosen UI for the
> feature. Per the few initial messages in the thread, in the patch as
> submitted you ask for a gaussian random number by using \setgaussian,
> and exponential via \setexp. Is this the right UI? Currently you get
> an evenly distributed number with \setrandom. There is nothing that
> makes it obvious on \setgaussian by itself that it produces random
> numbers. Perhaps we should simply add a new argument to \setrandom,
> instead of creating new commands for each distribution? I would guess
> that, in the future, we're going to want other distributions as well.
+1 for an argument to \setrandom instead of separate commands.
> Not sure what it would look like; perhaps
> \setrandom foo 1 10 gaussian
FWIW, I think this style is sufficient; the others seem overcomplicated
for not much gain. I'm not strongly attached to that position though.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2014-03-01 17:01:37 | commit fest status and release timeline |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2014-03-01 16:41:09 | Re: trgm regex index peculiarity |