From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Nicolas Barbier <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Bitmap index scans use of filters on available columns |
Date: | 2015-11-04 15:14:31 |
Message-ID: | 1799.1446650071@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 4 November 2015 at 15:54, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> We generate this plan
> Index Scan using f_x_y_idx on f (cost=0.42..26075.71 rows=209 width=37)
> Index Cond: (x = 5)
> Filter: (y ~~ '%abc%'::text)
> So it should be possible to do the Filter condition on the BitmapIndexScan.
You're missing my point: that is possible in an indexscan, but *not* in a
bitmap indexscan, because the index AM APIs are totally different in the
two cases. In a bitmap scan, nothing more than a TID bitmap is ever
returned out to anyplace that could execute arbitrary expressions.
In the case at hand, the planner should have considered a plan of this
shape as well. Presumably it concluded it was more expensive than using
the bitmap approach. Jeff might try "set enable_bitmapscan = 0" and
compare the estimated and actual costs.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-11-04 15:32:14 | Re: extend pgbench expressions with functions |
Previous Message | Kouhei Kaigai | 2015-11-04 15:13:55 | Re: CustomScan support on readfuncs.c |