Re: Estimates on partial index

2016-08-18 21:40 GMT+03:00 Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com>:

> Oh, that's interesting. I was under impression, that r_p_c reflects IO
> speed, like — make it smaller for SSDs.
> To make this query prefer BitmapScan, I need to bump r_p_c to 5.8. And 6.0
> makes it switch to SeqScan.
>

I was looking into different databases and queries around — many of them
prefers to use indexes over SeqScans, even if index is not a "perfect"
match,
like using index on the 2-nd column of the index (like searching for `rev`
via IndexScan over `id,rev` index).
I need to bump r_p_c to 6 (at least) to make things shift towards
BtimapScans, and I feel uncertain about such increase.

This makes me thinking — can this situation be an indication, that tables
are bloated?
(I've performed reindexing recently, touching majority of indexes around,
while tables were not touched.)

--
Victor Y. Yegorov