From: | Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Experiences of PostgreSQL on-disk bitmap index patch |
Date: | 2007-06-25 13:48:28 |
Message-ID: | 60zm2o2lhv.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
cjosefsson(at)gmail(dot)com ("Christan Josefsson") writes:
> So you indicate that the so called bitmap index scan, a.k.a
> in-memory bitmap indexes (right?), already adds such an
> improvement when it comes to optimized response time on large
> query sets (having the characteristics as normally used to
> identify cases where bitmap indexes improves performance like:
> low cardinality keys, large data volumes etc), so that the
> on-disk indexes are not really needed or atleast not worth wile
> implementing?
It looks very much like that may be the case...
Bitmap index scans have a somewhat different set of functionality, but
there is enough overlap that the cases where on-disk bitmap indexes
are useful (and in-memory bitmap scans aren't) look like rare edge
cases.
There may be users that see those "rare edge cases" all the time;
they'll find on-disk bitmap indexes worth having, and, possibly, worth
implementing.
But to be sure, there used to be a lot of "burning interest" in
on-disk bitmap indexes, and in-memory bitmap index scans have quenched
many of the flames...
--
"cbbrowne","@","cbbrowne.com"
http://linuxfinances.info/info/advocacy.html
">WindowsNT will not accept fecal matter in its diet... it's that simple.
I suppose that is a good ward against cannibalism." -- Nick Manka
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-25 14:16:42 | Re: alter table type from double precision to real |
Previous Message | Christan Josefsson | 2007-06-25 13:01:31 | Re: Experiences of PostgreSQL on-disk bitmap index patch |