From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Postgres general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
Date: | 2005-01-13 15:50:22 |
Message-ID: | 877jmhxr9d.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> writes:
> [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...
See:
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/random.html
I think the Oracle syntax looks like
SELECT * FROM foo SAMPLE (0.1)
I don't think I would have picked this syntax but it seems like a better idea
to copy the existing practice rather than invent a new one.
There are some details, like what to do when there's a WHERE clause or joins.
Oracle disallows joins entirely and I'm unclear what the best thing to do
about where clauses would be.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-01-13 15:50:29 | Re: vacuum vs open transactions |
Previous Message | Support (DBTools Software) | 2005-01-13 15:49:54 | [ANN] DBManager Professional 3.0.2 Released |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-01-13 15:56:12 | Win32 config file extension, capitalization |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-13 15:29:16 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |