Re: Should we optimize the `ORDER BY random() LIMIT x` case? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Vik Fearing
Subject Re: Should we optimize the `ORDER BY random() LIMIT x` case?
Date
Msg-id 8622ae44-7d37-4c6a-a52c-54ba738e5de0@postgresfriends.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should we optimize the `ORDER BY random() LIMIT x` case?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 16/05/2025 23:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org> writes:
>> On 16/05/2025 15:01, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Seems to me the obvious answer is to extend TABLESAMPLE (or at least, some
>>> of the tablesample methods) to allow it to work on a subquery.
>> Isn't this a job for <fetch first clause>?
>> FETCH SAMPLE FIRST 10 ROWS ONLY
> How is that an improvement on TABLESAMPLE?  Or did the committee
> forget that they already have that feature?
>
> TABLESAMPLE seems strictly better to me here because it affords
> the opportunity to specify one of several methods, which seems
> like it would be useful in this context.


TABLESAMPLE is hitched to a <table primary> which can be basically 
anything resembling a relation.  So it appears the standard already 
allows this and we just need to implement it.

-- 

Vik Fearing




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we optimize the `ORDER BY random() LIMIT x` case?
Next
From: Nico Williams
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we optimize the `ORDER BY random() LIMIT x` case?