From: | Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Experiences of PostgreSQL on-disk bitmap index patch |
Date: | 2007-07-03 03:39:53 |
Message-ID: | 4689C509.6040308@cox.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 06/25/07 09:58, Tom Lane wrote:
[snip]
>
> The fly in the ointment is that if the column value is so high
> cardinality as all that, it's questionable whether you want an index
> search at all rather than just seqscanning; and it's definite that
> the index access cost will be only a fraction of the heap access cost.
> So the prospects for actual net performance gain are a lot less than
> the index-size argument makes them look.
Well they definitely are for data warehouses, in which many
high-cardinality columns each have an index.
Because of their small disk size, ANDing them is fast and winnows
down the result set. That's the theory, of course.
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Harris (BR/EPA) | 2007-07-03 03:43:39 | Re: Invalid page header |
Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2007-07-03 03:21:55 | Re: What O/S or hardware feature would be useful for databases? |