Re: slow IN() clause for many cases

From: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Ilia Kantor <ilia(at)obnovlenie(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: slow IN() clause for many cases
Date: 2005-10-12 06:26:19
Message-ID: 36e682920510112326v4fe32755i5973a194e6cf008c@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

true dat :)

On 10/12/05, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> "Ilia Kantor" <ilia(at)obnovlenie(dot)ru> writes:
> > Bitmap Heap Scan on objects_hier (cost=60.29..179.57 rows=80 width=600)
> > (actual time=0.835..1.115 rows=138 loops=1)
>
> vs
>
> > Merge Join (cost=62.33..576.80 rows=1117 width=600) (actual
> > time=0.542..2.898 rows=138 loops=1)
>
> Hmm, sure looks from here like the bitmap plan is faster.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

--
Respectfully,

Jonah H. Harris, Database Internals Architect
EnterpriseDB Corporation
http://www.enterprisedb.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Hallgren 2005-10-12 08:41:12 Re: Socket problem using beta2 on Windows-XP
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-10-12 05:22:54 Re: slow IN() clause for many cases