Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: plans for bitmap indexes?

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Andre Maasikas <andre(at)abs(dot)ee>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: plans for bitmap indexes?
Date: 2004-10-27 21:04:53
Message-ID: 41800D75.8040602@coretech.co.nz (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark wrote:

>I think what you're trying to accomplish is better accomplished through
>partitioned tables. Then the user can decide which keys to use to partition
>the data and the optimizer can use the data to completely exclude some
>partitions from consideration. And it wouldn't interfere with indexes to
>access the data within a partition.
>  
>
Though partitioning will help, you can only partition on one key (I 
guess the ability to partition *indexes* might help here).

I think that bitmap indexes provide a flexible may to get fact access to 
the result set for multiple low cardinality conditions - something that 
partitioning will generally not do.

regards

Mark

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Mark KirkwoodDate: 2004-10-27 21:07:09
Subject: Re: plans for bitmap indexes?
Previous:From: ohpDate: 2004-10-27 20:31:44
Subject: Re: Unixware 714 pthreads

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group