| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Question about indexes |
| Date: | 2004-01-31 00:50:23 |
| Message-ID: | 23292.1075510223@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> ORing and ANDing of such bitmaps still works, with the understanding
>> that it's lossy and you have to double check each retrieved tuple.
> That would make it really hard to ever clear the bits.
We're speaking of in-memory bitmaps constructed on-the-fly here. You're
right that it wouldn't work for persistent indexes, but I'm not very
interested in that case at the moment ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dan Langille | 2004-01-31 02:10:55 | dump + restore didn't include schemas |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2004-01-31 00:04:03 | Re: Question about indexes |