From: | Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostGIS Users Discussion <postgis-users(at)lists(dot)osgeo(dot)org>, pgsql-general List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [postgis-users] Query with LIMIT but as random result set? |
Date: | 2013-01-10 22:36:38 |
Message-ID: | CAFcOn29kUGYvDo3HoTs1YcJj_WugPXpccHG+pf+WLHiopU95PQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi Kevin
No; I'm thinking about some query (or function) that selects random
points (POIs) with certain characteristics like decreasing density. I
didn't find much theory about how to *create* such random points.
There seems to be more literature and implementation about measuring
geographic distribution (like in ArcGIS http://bit.ly/13lTFj9 ).
Under "radial distribution function" I understand a function which
describes how density varies depending on the distance from a
reference point (= the user).
Yours, Stefan
2013/1/10 Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com>:
> Stefan Keller wrote:
>
>> "... ORDER BY random() LIMIT 10;" works ok.
>>
>> But with the following option it gets more tricky assume:
>>> And as an option the (limited) resultset should be spatially
>>> distributed (not clustered).
>>
>> I'm thinking about some radial spatial distribution function.
>
> So, you explicitly *don't* want a random selection? By "spatially
> distributed" you mean that if you have already chosen one
> particular location, other locations which are close to it should
> be less probable (or impossible) to include in the limited result
> set? How would you define the desired result? The one with the
> highest best solution to the "traveling salesman" problem?
>
> -Kevin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | xunuogui | 2013-01-11 04:28:38 | What can we do to create windows 7 boot disk |
Previous Message | wschwurack | 2013-01-10 21:33:11 | Re: Error: absolute path not allowed |