| From: | Pavel Stehule <stehule(at)kix(dot)fsv(dot)cvut(dot)cz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: bitmapscan test, no success, bs is not faster |
| Date: | 2005-04-27 06:27:02 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0504270751180.9477-100000@kix.fsv.cvut.cz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> Pavel Stehule <stehule(at)kix(dot)fsv(dot)cvut(dot)cz> writes:
> > I tested bitmap scan and maybe I didnt find good examples, but with bitmap
> > scan is slower than hashjoin. Only when I use non otiptimized SELECT bps
> > was little bit faster. All my SELECTs are equal.
>
> Bitmap scans can't possibly be any faster for cases where the indexscan
> only fetches one row, which is true of all your test cases AFAICS.
yes, it's true. I found some selects where the benefit of bitmap scans is
more clearly. There is only one small problem - optimizer didn't
have to choose plan with bitmap scan in my examples.
Thank you for explication,
Regards
Pavel Stehule
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-04-27 07:45:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Bad n_distinct estimation; hacks suggested? |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-04-27 05:59:30 | Re: [PERFORM] Bad n_distinct estimation; hacks suggested? |