From: | Daryl Richter <daryl(at)brandywine(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | |
Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SEVEN cross joins?!?!? |
Date: | 2005-10-12 13:00:11 |
Message-ID: | 434D08DB.6090409@brandywine.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Richard Huxton wrote:
> Frank Bax wrote:
>
>>> Are you saying that you WANT to generate a cross-join, score the
>>> millions of results and then pick the best 10? It's doing what you
>>> want, but you'd like it to be faster.
>>>
>>> Or are you saying that you'd like to avoid the explosion in rows
>>> altogether?
>>>
>>> In either case - I don't suppose you could provide a real example of
>>> the query, so we can see exactly what you're trying to do.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no "best 10". I currently limit each subselect to 10 items
>> so that query will actually run without crashing. I would like to
>> remove the "ORDER BY itemid LIMIT 10" mentioned above. At the end of
>> the query I have a "LIMIT 100" clause which will stay and produces a
>> list of "best 100" combos.
>>
>> Either of your solutions would be acceptable; since avoiding the
>> "explosion" would also make the query faster. Current calculations
>> indicate that running the query without "LIMIT 10" in subselect would
>> take years to process.
>
>
> OK - so at the heart of the problem is the fact that you want to search
> a space with 100 billion possible states. There are three main options
>
> 1. Brute force and patience - simple and is guaranteed to produce the
> "best" answers. You can use cursors/multiple queries to manage the
> workload. The disadvantage is that it's probably slower than you'd like.
> 2. Smarter algorithms - possibly something genetic to work towards local
> maxima. Or, if you'd like to keep it simple, just split your 7 locations
> into 2,2,3 and solve for each separately.
> 3. Statistical - examine a subset of possible states and accept you'll
> only be able to say "almost best" to 99% confidence or similar.
>
> I'd be tempted by #2 - there are probably some combinations you can rule
> out, which combined with a split/recombine should reduce the number of
> states to query.
>
I'll second this recommendation. The OP is trying to drive a nail with
a screwdriver. He needs a program, not a query.
> That any help?
> --
> Richard Huxton
> Archonet Ltd
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
--
Daryl Richter
(daryl (at)(brandywine dot com))
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andy | 2005-10-12 13:52:23 | Strange join...maybe some improvements??? |
Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-10-12 10:34:32 | Re: SEVEN cross joins?!?!? |