| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Chaotically weird execution plan |
| Date: | 2008-09-24 03:12:26 |
| Message-ID: | 48D9B01A.5010702@postnewspapers.com.au |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> I'd already written: "If you need the test for status = 1, consider a
>> partial index" when I noticed your schema definition:
>
>>> "comments_created_by" btree (created_by) WHERE status = 1
>
>> I find it hard to guess why it's having to recheck the WHERE clause
>> given the use of a partial index that should cover that nicely.
>
> No, that's operating as designed. A bitmap scan's RECHECK condition
> is only applied when the bitmap has become lossy due to memory
> pressure. In that case we have to look at each row on each of the pages
> fingered by the index as containing possible matches ... and we'd better
> check the partial-index qual too, since maybe not all the rows on those
> pages will satisfy it. In a plain indexscan there is no lossiness
> involved and so the partial-index qual need never be rechecked.
Aah. Thanks very much for the explanation of that, the plan now makes sense.
--
Craig Ringer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-09-24 03:24:57 | Re: Intel's X25-M SSD |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-24 03:01:10 | Re: Chaotically weird execution plan |