| From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Andre Maasikas <andre(at)abs(dot)ee>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: plans for bitmap indexes? |
| Date: | 2004-10-27 21:04:53 |
| Message-ID: | 41800D75.8040602@coretech.co.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark wrote:
>I think what you're trying to accomplish is better accomplished through
>partitioned tables. Then the user can decide which keys to use to partition
>the data and the optimizer can use the data to completely exclude some
>partitions from consideration. And it wouldn't interfere with indexes to
>access the data within a partition.
>
>
Though partitioning will help, you can only partition on one key (I
guess the ability to partition *indexes* might help here).
I think that bitmap indexes provide a flexible may to get fact access to
the result set for multiple low cardinality conditions - something that
partitioning will generally not do.
regards
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2004-10-27 21:07:09 | Re: plans for bitmap indexes? |
| Previous Message | ohp | 2004-10-27 20:31:44 | Re: Unixware 714 pthreads |