Re: Bitmap Indexes: request for feedback

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Gianni Ciolli <gianni(dot)ciolli(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it>, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Bitmap Indexes: request for feedback
Date: 2008-10-22 09:50:44
Message-ID: 48FEF774.1000109@paradise.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>
> The other major issue with the Bitmap index patch as it stood in 2007 was
> that performance just wasn't that much faster than a btree, except for
> specific corner cases. Otherwise, someone else would have been interested
> enough to pick it up and finish it.
>
> So performance testing of the patch is absolutely essential.
>
>
As Simon mentioned - index creation time and size was certainly improved
considerably.

There were certainly cases when row retrieval performance was not
improved much (as compared to using a comparable btree index) - my
analysis was that these were typically when heap fetch time dominated
index scan time i.e it didn't matter how good your index access was, you
were mired in heap seeks. ISTM that this situation will change
dramatically when index only access (via dead space map? or similar)
arrives.

Note that even if only for the on disk size savings, these are worth
having for data warehousing situations.

regards

Mark

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2008-10-22 10:14:54 Re: Withdraw PL/Proxy from commitfest
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2008-10-22 09:29:46 Re: Deriving Recovery Snapshots