I can see how estimated counts could be valuable information. Or not.On 7/29/13 10:15 PM, Kostas Jakeliunas wrote:
> It should also be possible to do efficient *estimated* COUNTs (using
> reltuples [1, 2], provided the DB can be regularly VACUUMed + ANALYZEd
> (postgres-specific awesomeness)) - i.e. if everything is set up right,
> doing COUNTs would be efficient. This would be nice not only because one
> could run very quick queries asking e.g. "how many consensuses include
> nickname LIKE %moo% between [daterange1, daterange2]?" (if e.g. full text
> search is set up) but also, if we have to resort to sometimes returning an
> arbitrary subset of results (or sorted however we wish, but the sorting
> being done already on a small subset of results, if that makes sense), we'd
> be able to also supply info how many other results matching these
> particular criteria there are, and so on. The usefulness of all this really
> depends on intended use cases, and I suppose here some discussion could be
> had who / how would an Onionoo system covering all / most of all the
> descriptor+consensus archives and hopefully having an extended set of
> filter / result options be used?
Do you want to first specify what type of queries you're planning to
support?
(I didn't spot anything in the other two mails that requires a reply.
If there are still open questions, please let me know.)
Best,
Karsten
>
> [1]: http://www.varlena.com/GeneralBits/120.php
> [2]: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Slow_Counting
>
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev