Re: tablesample performance
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: tablesample performance |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 24207.1476812072@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: tablesample performance (Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: tablesample performance
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net> writes:
> On 10/18/2016 11:44 AM, Francisco Olarte wrote:
>> This should be faster, but to me it seems it does a different thing.
> Ah, yes, you're right, there is a bit of a difference there.
If you don't want to have an implicit bias towards earlier blocks,
I don't think that either standard tablesample method is really what
you want.
The contrib/tsm_system_rows tablesample method is a lot closer, in
that it will start at a randomly chosen block, but if you just do
"tablesample system_rows(1)" then you will always get the first row
in whichever block it lands on, so it's still not exactly unbiased.
Maybe you could select "tablesample system_rows(100)" or so and then
do the order-by-random trick on that sample. This would be a lot
faster than selecting 100 random rows with either built-in sample
method, since the rows it grabs will be consecutive.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: