Re: Plan time Improvement - 64bit bitmapset

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "Andres Freund" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Plan time Improvement - 64bit bitmapset
Date: 2009-06-03 19:24:13
Message-ID: 10114.1244057053@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> But that doesn't explain the bitmap ops being important. Hm. Actually
> having a lot of columns and then joining a lot of tables could mean
> having fairly large bitmapsets.

Yeah, but then you have a lot of *other* expensive operations too,
such as the aforementioned statistics-pushing. It's still pretty
mystifying why bitmapsets would be eating a noticeable fraction
of the total.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron Mayer 2009-06-03 19:33:35 Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2009-06-03 19:18:19 Re: Plan time Improvement - 64bit bitmapset