Re: Why a bitmap scan in this case?

From: Jon Zeppieri <zeppieri(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Frédéric Yhuel <frederic(dot)yhuel(at)dalibo(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why a bitmap scan in this case?
Date: 2024-12-20 21:01:57
Message-ID: CAKfDxxzb_=qfQy2YEDyb-xKJ78_F=iRY_-_zo4RdzQGUc5QX3w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 4:57 AM Frédéric Yhuel
<frederic(dot)yhuel(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/20/24 09:16, Frédéric Yhuel wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 12/19/24 20:09, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
> >> The table is freshly vacuumed. If I disable bitmap scans, it will do
> >> an index only scan, which performs better. For the bitmap heap scan,
> >> it says "Heap Blocks: exact=27393," whereas for the index only scan,
> >> it's "Heap Fetches: 27701."
> >
> > So you have 100% heap fetches. Are you sure that your table is freshly
> > vacuumed? Please note that VACUUM FULL doesn't create the visibility
> > map, so you still have to run a plain VACUUM for this.

Ah, thanks -- I didn't know that. -J

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2024-12-20 22:00:12 Re: Re: proposal: schema variables
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2024-12-20 12:53:20 Re: proposal: schema variables