Re: Why does query planner choose slower BitmapAnd ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Seamus Abshere <seamus(at)abshere(dot)net>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why does query planner choose slower BitmapAnd ?
Date: 2016-02-22 17:49:43
Message-ID: 26645.1456163383@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Seamus Abshere <seamus(at)abshere(dot)net> writes:
> Inspired, I changed cpu_index_tuple_cost to 0.1 (default: 0.005). It
> "fixed" my problem by preventing the BitmapAnd.

> Is this dangerous?

Use a gentle tap, man, don't swing the hammer with quite so much abandon.
I'd have tried doubling the setting to start with. Raising it 20X might
cause other queries to change behavior undesirably.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Seamus Abshere 2016-02-22 17:53:38 Re: Why does query planner choose slower BitmapAnd ?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-02-22 17:47:30 Re: Why does query planner choose slower BitmapAnd ?