From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: plans for bitmap indexes? |
Date: | 2004-10-17 21:51:20 |
Message-ID: | 4172E958.2090803@coretech.co.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
>I believe that the term "bitmap index" is also used with a different
>meaning wherein it actually does describe a particular kind of on-disk
>index structure, with one bit per table row.
>
>IMHO building in-memory bitmaps (the first idea) is a very good idea to
>pursue for Postgres. I'm not at all sold on on-disk bitmap indexes,
>though ... those I suspect *are* sufficiently replaced by partial
>indexes.
>
>
>
I believe that the benefit of on-disk bitmap indexes is supposed to be
reduced storage size (compared to btree).
In the cases where I have put them to use, they certainly occupy
considerably less disk than a comparable btree index - provided there
are not too many district values in the indexed column.
regards
Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Troels Arvin | 2004-10-17 21:56:21 | DETERMINISTIC as synonym for IMMUTABLE |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-10-17 21:44:56 | Re: strange result from contrib/seg regression on windows |