| From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, npboley(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: new correlation metric |
| Date: | 2008-10-27 17:36:27 |
| Message-ID: | 4905FC1B.7030202@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> writes:
>> ...bitmap cost estimates didn't also change much....
>
> By definition, a bitmap scan's cost isn't affected by index order
> correlation.
No? I think I understand that for index scans the correlation
influenced how many data pages are estimated to get sucked in.
Wouldn't a bitmap scan using a single index also fetch roughly
the same number of data pages as an index scan?
I'm not complaining, since 8.3's doing great on all my real-world
queries. And sorry for my naive questions - feel free to tell
me to just read the code if this is something I should be able
to figure out myself.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2008-10-27 17:41:26 | Re: array_agg and array_accum (patch) |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-10-27 17:16:11 | Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions |