| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Question about Bitmap Heap Scan/BitmapAnd |
| Date: | 2007-02-13 16:49:13 |
| Message-ID: | 1285.1171385353@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> What surprises me is that "parking" is in the filter and not in the
> Recheck Cond whereas it's part of the second Bitmap Index Scan of the
> Bitmap And node.
That's probably because of this:
/*
* When dealing with special or lossy operators, we will at this point
* have duplicate clauses in qpqual and bitmapqualorig. We may as well
* drop 'em from bitmapqualorig, since there's no point in making the
* tests twice.
*/
bitmapqualorig = list_difference_ptr(bitmapqualorig, qpqual);
What's not immediately clear is why the condition was in both lists to
start with. Perhaps idx_lieu_parking is a partial index with this as
its WHERE condition?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Smet | 2007-02-13 17:09:19 | Proximity query with GIST and row estimation |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Smet | 2007-02-13 16:32:58 | Question about Bitmap Heap Scan/BitmapAnd |