Re: plans for bitmap indexes?

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Andre Maasikas <andre(at)abs(dot)ee>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: plans for bitmap indexes?
Date: 2004-10-27 21:04:53
Message-ID: 41800D75.8040602@coretech.co.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark wrote:

>I think what you're trying to accomplish is better accomplished through
>partitioned tables. Then the user can decide which keys to use to partition
>the data and the optimizer can use the data to completely exclude some
>partitions from consideration. And it wouldn't interfere with indexes to
>access the data within a partition.
>
>
Though partitioning will help, you can only partition on one key (I
guess the ability to partition *indexes* might help here).

I think that bitmap indexes provide a flexible may to get fact access to
the result set for multiple low cardinality conditions - something that
partitioning will generally not do.

regards

Mark

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2004-10-27 21:07:09 Re: plans for bitmap indexes?
Previous Message ohp 2004-10-27 20:31:44 Re: Unixware 714 pthreads