Re: Bitmap index scans use of filters on available columns

From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bitmap index scans use of filters on available columns
Date: 2015-11-06 04:58:21
Message-ID: 20151106.135821.152942075.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello,

At Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:49:30 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in <CAA4eK1L_5T-UYsQeMOrX54g3QeXGhhAk5YFmzZqu5MidzxzkRg(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> Apart from other problems discussed, I think it could also lead to
> a performance penality for the cases when the qual condition is
> costly as evaluating such a qual against lot of dead rows would be a
> time consuming operation. I am not sure, but I think some of the
> other well know databases might not have any such problems as
> they store visibility info inside index due to which they don't need to
> fetch the heap tuple for evaluating such quals.

I was junst thinking of the same thing. Can we estimate the
degree of the expected penalty using heap statistics? Of couse
not so accurate though.

regards,

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christian Marie 2015-11-06 05:00:49 [PATCH] RFC: Add length parameterised dmetaphone functions
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2015-11-06 04:55:44 Re: Some questions about the array.