Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> I'd already written: "If you need the test for status = 1, consider a
>> partial index" when I noticed your schema definition:
>>> "comments_created_by" btree (created_by) WHERE status = 1
>> I find it hard to guess why it's having to recheck the WHERE clause
>> given the use of a partial index that should cover that nicely.
> No, that's operating as designed. A bitmap scan's RECHECK condition
> is only applied when the bitmap has become lossy due to memory
> pressure. In that case we have to look at each row on each of the pages
> fingered by the index as containing possible matches ... and we'd better
> check the partial-index qual too, since maybe not all the rows on those
> pages will satisfy it. In a plain indexscan there is no lossiness
> involved and so the partial-index qual need never be rechecked.
Aah. Thanks very much for the explanation of that, the plan now makes sense.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2008-09-24 03:24:57|
|Subject: Re: Intel's X25-M SSD|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-09-24 03:01:10|
|Subject: Re: Chaotically weird execution plan |