Re: plans for bitmap indexes?

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Subject: Re: plans for bitmap indexes?
Date: 2004-10-17 21:51:20
Message-ID: 4172E958.2090803@coretech.co.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Tom Lane wrote:

>
>I believe that the term "bitmap index" is also used with a different
>meaning wherein it actually does describe a particular kind of on-disk
>index structure, with one bit per table row.
>
>IMHO building in-memory bitmaps (the first idea) is a very good idea to
>pursue for Postgres. I'm not at all sold on on-disk bitmap indexes,
>though ... those I suspect *are* sufficiently replaced by partial
>indexes.
>
>
>
I believe that the benefit of on-disk bitmap indexes is supposed to be
reduced storage size (compared to btree).

In the cases where I have put them to use, they certainly occupy
considerably less disk than a comparable btree index - provided there
are not too many district values in the indexed column.

regards

Mark

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Troels Arvin 2004-10-17 21:56:21 DETERMINISTIC as synonym for IMMUTABLE
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2004-10-17 21:44:56 Re: strange result from contrib/seg regression on windows