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

Re: [PERFORM] Slow query: bitmap scan troubles

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Slow query: bitmap scan troubles
Date: 2013-01-14 16:45:01
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYQ6Nq-tpHiDPCUH3CkH2N9D67=oDKJtLxuRRC=dRteSQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Comments?

I'm not sure I have anything intelligent to add to this conversation -
does that make me the wisest of all the Greeks? - but I do think it
worth mentioning that I have heard occasional reports within EDB of
the query planner refusing to use extremely large indexes no matter
how large a hammer was applied.  I have never been able to obtain
enough details to understand the parameters of the problem, let alone
reproduce it, but I thought it might be worth mentioning anyway in
case it's both real and related to the case at hand.  Basically I
guess that boils down to: it would be good to consider whether the
costing model is correct for an index of, say, 1TB.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2013-01-14 17:23:17
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Slow query: bitmap scan troubles
Previous:From: Boszormenyi ZoltanDate: 2013-01-14 14:28:48
Subject: Re: Two Necessary Kernel Tweaks for Linux Systems

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2013-01-14 16:45:38
Subject: Re: Get current query in a trigger function
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2013-01-14 16:32:49
Subject: Re: json api WIP patch

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