From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | depesz(at)depesz(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [9.2devel] why it doesn't do index scan only? |
Date: | 2011-10-08 17:53:37 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCbRT_vx8quLiAFPc4MKvMSjUGiXhqnYV8MFHBvYAN+uQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hello
2011/10/8 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> writes:
>> it is selecting 20 rows out of 30 million. why is it:
>> 1. not using index only scan
>> 2. not using even normal index scan?
>
> It thinks the bitmap scan is cheaper. Whether that's true or not is not
> very clear, but nobody is claiming that the costing of index-only scans
> is accurate yet.
>
I did a few tests and bitmap scan is faster. Maybe there is a some
issue. In very simple test (and very syntetic test)
create table omega(a int);
insert into omega select (random()*10000)::int from generate_series(1,400000);
select count(*) from omega where a = 100;
and index scan is faster than index only scan. There is lot of
duplicates. When I used a bigger range, a speed of bitmap index, index
only scan and index scan is similar - but index scan was faster
everywhere.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thom Brown | 2011-10-08 18:21:05 | Re: [9.2devel] why it doesn't do index scan only? |
Previous Message | pasman pasmański | 2011-10-08 17:20:48 | Re: [9.2devel] why it doesn't do index scan only? |