From: | Paul <paul(at)wayr(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: index & Bitmap Heap Scan |
Date: | 2007-08-29 08:16:45 |
Message-ID: | 1188375405.9028.3.camel@thory |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Thank you for your answer.
Now i ve to find how to reduce the size of the table.
Paul.
Le mardi 28 août 2007 à 12:55 -0400, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Paul <paul(at)wayr(dot)org> writes:
> > Why in the first case, pgsql uses the "better" index and if i search
> > r_service instead of r_numero pgsql does a "Bitmap Heap scan" first ?
>
> Given the difference in the number of rows to be fetched, both plan
> choices look pretty reasonable to me. If you want to experiment,
> you can try forcing the other choice in each case (use enable_indexscan
> and enable_bitmapscan) and see how fast it is, but I suspect the planner
> got it right.
>
> Beware of cache effects when trying two plans in quick succession ---
> the second one might go faster just because all the data is already
> swapped in.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-08-29 08:29:21 | Re: Performance problem with table containing a lot of text (blog) |
Previous Message | Robins | 2007-08-29 02:45:09 | Re: Performance across multiple schemas |