| From: | Martin Kalcher <martin(dot)kalcher(at)aboutsource(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Introduce array_shuffle() and array_sample() |
| Date: | 2022-07-18 22:52:47 |
| Message-ID: | f291e91b-34d0-6711-b32d-4c90a40c347c@aboutsource.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Am 19.07.22 um 00:18 schrieb Tom Lane:
>
> Independently of the dimensionality question --- I'd imagined that
> array_sample would select a random subset of the array elements
> but keep their order intact. If you want the behavior shown
> above, you can do array_shuffle(array_sample(...)). But if we
> randomize it, and that's not what the user wanted, she has no
> recourse.
>
> Now, if you're convinced that the set of people wanting
> sampling-without-shuffling is the empty set, then making everybody
> else call two functions is a loser. But I'm not convinced.
> At the least, I'd like to see the argument made why nobody
> would want that.
>
On the contrary! I am pretty sure there are people out there wanting
sampling-without-shuffling. I will think about that.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-07-19 01:09:12 | Re: [PATCH] Introduce array_shuffle() and array_sample() |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-07-18 22:43:32 | Re: [PATCH] Introduce array_shuffle() and array_sample() |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2022-07-18 22:53:25 | Re: Commitfest Update |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-07-18 22:43:32 | Re: [PATCH] Introduce array_shuffle() and array_sample() |