Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans

From: Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans
Date: 2019-06-20 14:55:36
Message-ID: 20190620145536.GA32518@kisb.local
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Looking at the discussion where the feature was added, I think changing the
> EXPLAIN just wasn't considered.

I think this is an oversight. It is very useful to have this on
EXPLAIN.

> The attached patch adds "avoided" to "exact" and "lossy" as a category
> under "Heap Blocks".

It took me a while to figure out what those names mean. "unfetched",
as you call it on the code, may be more descriptive than "avoided" for
the new label. However I think the other two are more confusing. It
may be a good idea to change them together with this.

> I think the name of the node should also be changed to "Bitmap Only Heap
> Scan", but I didn't implement that as adding another NodeTag looks like a
> lot of tedious error prone work to do before getting feedback on whether
> the change is desirable in the first place, or the correct approach.

I am not sure about this part. In my opinion it may have been easier
to explain to users if "Index Only Scan" had not been separate but
"Index Scan" optimization.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2019-06-20 14:57:04 Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-06-20 14:52:54 Re: benchmarking Flex practices