| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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. |