Re: Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database schema

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Qi Huang <huangqiyx(at)hotmail(dot)com>, neil(dot)conway(at)gmail(dot)com, daniel(at)heroku(dot)com, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database schema
Date: 2012-03-21 14:35:54
Message-ID: 375.1332340554@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> One thing we should probably try to establish before you get started
> working on this is whether people want the feature, which is basically
> the ability to write something like this in the FROM clause of a
> query:

> table_name TABLESAMPLE { BERNOULLI | SYSTEM } ( sample_percent ) [
> REPEATABLE ( repeat_seed ) ] ]

> I have at present no position on whether we want that or not, but
> maybe someone else does. The upside is that would be a more efficient
> replacement for the ORDER BY random() trick that is often used today;
> the downside is that it requires dedicated syntax and a whole new
> executor node for something that, realistically, isn't going to come
> up very often.

Yeah --- you're talking about chunks of new code in both planner and
executor. A very rough estimate is that this might be about as
complicated to do properly as MergeAppend was (and we're still shaking
out the bugs in that :-().

Now that would all be fine if this were a widely-desired feature, but
AFAIR the user demand for it has been about nil. So I'm leaning to
the position that we don't want it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message lekon 2012-03-21 14:39:39 how can i see the log..?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-03-21 14:22:41 Re: Proposal: Create index on foreign table