Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps

From: Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>, tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
Subject: Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps
Date: 2008-01-09 14:53:39
Message-ID: 4784DFF3.9040701@bluegap.ch
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:
> Hmmm. I think it fits rather neatly with BitmapIndexScans. It would be
> easy to apply the index condition and/or filters to see which segments
> are excluded and then turn off bits in the bitmap appropriately.

Yeah, good point.

> Not fully sure about IndexScans yet. I don't think it would be worth
> trying to apply SE until we estimated we would return say 100 rows. It
> needs to be able to work without slowing down the common path.

Yup.

>> Or
>> put it another way: SE is an optimization for sequential scans. For
>> tables where it works well, it could possibly replace the index entirely.
>
> True
>
>> Without the index, you would rely on SE to always be able to exclude
>> enough segments, so that the seq scan is less expensive than an index
>> scan with the following table lookups.
>
> It would have to be a very fat index scan for so large a table...

..for SE to be faster than an index scan, you mean? Yes.

Regards

Markus

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2008-01-09 14:57:19 Re: Some notes about the index-functions security vulnerability
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-01-09 14:49:49 Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps