Re: Question about Bitmap Heap Scan/BitmapAnd

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Question about Bitmap Heap Scan/BitmapAnd
Date: 2007-02-15 16:34:49
Message-ID: 26633.1171557289@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Guillaume Smet escribi:
>> Is it normal I have no recheck cond and the index cond of Bitmap Index
>> Scan is in the filter? Is it also a consequence of the code you
>> pointed?

> It is in the filter, is it not? Having a recheck would be redundant.

Yeah, but his question is why is it in the filter? I think that the
answer is probably "because the index is lossy for this operator,
so it has to be checked even if the bitmap didn't become lossy".
You'd have to check the GIST opclass definition to be sure.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mike Gargano 2007-02-15 17:00:02 strange issue for certain queries
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-02-15 16:27:33 Re: Question about Bitmap Heap Scan/BitmapAnd