Re: Choice of bitmap scan over index scan

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: mathieu(at)dezutter(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Choice of bitmap scan over index scan
Date: 2010-01-11 02:52:25
Message-ID: 603c8f071001101852n7ce69d9atfc0b7aa65d8e357d@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> seq_page_cost = 0.1
> random_page_cost = 0.1

These might not even be low enough. The reason why bitmap index scans
win over plain index scans, in general, is because you make one pass
through the heap to get all the rows you need instead of bouncing
around doing lots of random access. But of course if all the data is
in RAM then this argument falls down.

If these aren't enough to get the query planner to DTRT, then the OP
might want to try lowering them further and seeing how low he has to
go to flip the plan...

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-01-11 02:53:37 Re: Choice of bitmap scan over index scan
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-01-10 18:45:32 Re: PG optimization question