December 5, 2016 at 4:47 pm
urbanromio2 (12/4/2016)
I tried grouping using that column. But it does not support more than 4086 combinations.
Well, no surprise there, really... There's been a "scale" problem of one kind or another with this since the beginning. I'm pretty sure that any kind of GROUP BY has little chance of doing you much good. You're going to have to look at alternatives, such as breaking the problem down into bite-sized pieces, such as starting out by determining if there's a realistic maximum on the number of elements that can be combined, and then separately solving for all possible combinations of a given number of elements, and repeating that solution going as high as performance reasonably allows. I'm doubtful there's a viable alternative.
Steve (aka sgmunson) 🙂 🙂 🙂
Rent Servers for Income (picks and shovels strategy)
December 6, 2016 at 11:04 am
Still trying to figure out what he really wants, but I am thinking maybe this is a linear programming problem? Let us be honest, SQL is not really good at fancy math. We designed the language. Our intent was that it would put together data and throw that data over to another tier. It was equipped for specialized uses like linear programming programming, statistics, fancy display graphics, voice over the Internet, and whatever other wonderful things people decide to do with data when they get it:-)
Books in Celko Series for Morgan-Kaufmann Publishing
Analytics and OLAP in SQL
Data and Databases: Concepts in Practice
Data, Measurements and Standards in SQL
SQL for Smarties
SQL Programming Style
SQL Puzzles and Answers
Thinking in Sets
Trees and Hierarchies in SQL
Viewing 2 posts - 31 through 31 (of 31 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply