Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Zipfian distribution in pgbench
От | Alik Khilazhev |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Zipfian distribution in pgbench |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5FD3F866-CA30-4634-9D48-DE669A84248C@postgrespro.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Zipfian distribution in pgbench (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Zipfian distribution in pgbench
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Fabien, > > I think that this method should be used for a>1, and the other very rough one can be kept for parameter a in [0, 1), acase which does not make much sense to a mathematician as it diverges if unbounded. Now “a” does not have upper bound, that’s why on using iterative algorithm with a >= 10000 program will stuck on infiniteloop because of following line of code: double b = pow(2.0, s - 1.0); Because after overflow “b” becomes “+Inf”. So should upper bound for “a" be set? Should I mention in docs that there are two algorithms are used depending on values of a(s/theta)? In attaching patch, I have added computeIterativeZipfian method and it’s usage in getZipfianRand. Is it better to move code of computing via cache to new method, so that getZipfianRand will contain only 2 computeXXXZipfianmethod calls? — Thanks and Regards, Alik Khilazhev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: