From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Chaotically weird execution plan |
Date: | 2008-09-24 03:12:26 |
Message-ID: | 48D9B01A.5010702@postnewspapers.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> I'd already written: "If you need the test for status = 1, consider a
>> partial index" when I noticed your schema definition:
>
>>> "comments_created_by" btree (created_by) WHERE status = 1
>
>> I find it hard to guess why it's having to recheck the WHERE clause
>> given the use of a partial index that should cover that nicely.
>
> No, that's operating as designed. A bitmap scan's RECHECK condition
> is only applied when the bitmap has become lossy due to memory
> pressure. In that case we have to look at each row on each of the pages
> fingered by the index as containing possible matches ... and we'd better
> check the partial-index qual too, since maybe not all the rows on those
> pages will satisfy it. In a plain indexscan there is no lossiness
> involved and so the partial-index qual need never be rechecked.
Aah. Thanks very much for the explanation of that, the plan now makes sense.
--
Craig Ringer
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-09-24 03:24:57 | Re: Intel's X25-M SSD |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-24 03:01:10 | Re: Chaotically weird execution plan |