On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 11:49:31AM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:34:21AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Gregory Stark wrote:
> >
> > > WITH RECURSIVE Z(IX, IY, CX, CY, X, Y, I) AS (
> > > [elided]
> >
> > FWIW you can halve the running time by restricting I to 27 inste
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:34:21AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
>
> > WITH RECURSIVE Z(IX, IY, CX, CY, X, Y, I) AS (
> > [elided]
>
> FWIW you can halve the running time by restricting I to 27 instead of
> 100 in the recursive term, and obtain the same result.
I found it e
Gregory Stark wrote:
> WITH RECURSIVE Z(IX, IY, CX, CY, X, Y, I) AS (
> SELECT IX, IY, X::float, Y::float, X::float, Y::float, 0
> FROM (select -2.2 + 0.031 * i, i from generate_series(0,101)
> as i) as xgen(x,ix),
> (select -1.5 + 0.031 * i, i
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 04:33:16PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > David Fetter escribi?:
> > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 04:11:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > > This is a cool hack, agreed, but that doesn't make it a useful
> > > > regression test. Whatever value it m
Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 09:06:13PM +0100, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
I takes 2.6 second on my laptop. I think it is not so bad.
About 2.0 on my OS/X laptop. Could this be a problem on whatever
architecture/OS/compiler combo you have?
Not
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> David Fetter escribi?:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 04:11:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > > This is a cool hack, agreed, but that doesn't make it a useful
> > > regression test. Whatever value it might have isn't going to repay
> > > the community-wide expenditure of cycl
David Fetter escribió:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 04:11:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > This is a cool hack, agreed, but that doesn't make it a useful
> > regression test. Whatever value it might have isn't going to repay
> > the community-wide expenditure of cycles.
>
> What's the slowest it run
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 04:11:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 09:06:13PM +0100, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> >> I takes 2.6 second on my laptop. I think it is not so bad.
>
> > About 2.0 on my OS/X laptop. Could this be a problem on wha
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 09:06:13PM +0100, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
>> I takes 2.6 second on my laptop. I think it is not so bad.
> About 2.0 on my OS/X laptop. Could this be a problem on whatever
> architecture/OS/compiler combo you have?
Not everyone is us
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 09:06:13PM +0100, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera napsal(a):
>> David Fetter escribió:
>>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:21:06PM -, David Rowley wrote:
Gregory Stark wrote:
> So based on Graeme Job's T-SQL hack over at thedailywtf.com I
> adapted the T-SQ
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I takes 2.6 second on my laptop. I think it is not so bad.
>
Time: 694.512 ms
:-)
merlin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgres
Alvaro Herrera napsal(a):
David Fetter escribió:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:21:06PM -, David Rowley wrote:
Gregory Stark wrote:
So based on Graeme Job's T-SQL hack over at thedailywtf.com I adapted the
T-SQL code to Postgres and got this. Thought others might find it amusing.
That's pret
David Fetter escribió:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:21:06PM -, David Rowley wrote:
> > Gregory Stark wrote:
> > > So based on Graeme Job's T-SQL hack over at thedailywtf.com I adapted the
> > > T-SQL code to Postgres and got this. Thought others might find it amusing.
> > >
> > That's pretty a
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:21:06PM -, David Rowley wrote:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
> > So based on Graeme Job's T-SQL hack over at thedailywtf.com I adapted the
> > T-SQL code to Postgres and got this. Thought others might find it amusing.
> >
> That's pretty amazing.
>
> I think we should add
1st) it turns out PostgreSQL allows code that is more compact than
MSQL: 19 lines instead of 46 lines
2nd) now there will be a really compelling reason for DBAs worldwide
to upgrade to 8.4; after release everyone without Mandelbrot in SQL is
just a lame noob
3rd) maybe THAT could be the final s
> So based on Graeme Job's T-SQL hack over at thedailywtf.com I adapted the
> T-SQL code to Postgres and got this. Thought others might find it amusing.
>
> WITH RECURSIVE Z(IX, IY, CX, CY, X, Y, I) AS (
> SELECT IX, IY, X::float, Y::float, X::float, Y::float, 0
> F
Gregory Stark wrote:
> So based on Graeme Job's T-SQL hack over at thedailywtf.com I adapted the
> T-SQL code to Postgres and got this. Thought others might find it amusing.
>
> WITH RECURSIVE Z(IX, IY, CX, CY, X, Y, I) AS (
> SELECT IX, IY, X::float, Y::float, X::float, Y::float,
On 2008-11-19, at 21:53, Gregory Stark wrote:
So based on Graeme Job's T-SQL hack over at thedailywtf.com I
adapted the
T-SQL code to Postgres and got this. Thought others might find it
amusing.
hohoho, nice. That's even better than mine "with recursive" PI
generator :)
--
Sent vi
So based on Graeme Job's T-SQL hack over at thedailywtf.com I adapted the
T-SQL code to Postgres and got this. Thought others might find it amusing.
WITH RECURSIVE Z(IX, IY, CX, CY, X, Y, I) AS (
SELECT IX, IY, X::float, Y::float, X::float, Y::float, 0
FROM (select
19 matches
Mail list logo
