From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jesper Krogh <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: bitmap-index-scan faster than seq-scan on full-table-scan (gin index) |
Date: | 2010-05-31 20:09:24 |
Message-ID: | 18522.1275336564@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jesper Krogh <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc> writes:
> Conceptually searching for the "full dataset" would always be fastest
> solved by a seq-scan. The query planner enforces this so much, so not
> even "enable_seqscan=off" can convince it to to something else.
> ...
> Would it be possible to implement the "Filtering" using the gin-index and
> a subsequent visibillity-check as on the index-scan?
You're failing to make any sense whatsoever. If you're reading the full
dataset, there is no filter condition. If there is a potentially
indexable filter condition, the planner will certainly consider that.
Personally I think the issue here has got more to do with the
non-immutability of the single-argument form of to_tsquery, which means
it gets re-evaluated at every row during a seqscan. Do your results
change if you work with to_tsquery('english', ...) (or whatever your
default TS config is)?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-31 20:12:12 | Re: why do we have rd_istemp? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-05-31 20:03:57 | Re: why do we have rd_istemp? |