| From: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Ben <midfield(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: encourging bitmap AND |
| Date: | 2010-12-26 06:50:49 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimvWF7BZo8Ko+wExE+pCfeRqvnz-Qp--2w=7h3C@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 22:52, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Ben <midfield(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> i have a schema similar to the following
>
>> create index foo_s_idx on foo using btree (s);
>> create index foo_e_idx on foo using btree (e);
>
>> i want to do queries like
>
>> select * from foo where 150 between s and e;
>
> That index structure is really entirely unsuited to what you want to do,
> so it's not surprising that the planner isn't impressed with the idea of
> a bitmap AND.
Why is it unsuited for this query? It expands to (150 < s AND 150 > e)
which should work nicely with bitmap AND as far as I can tell.
Regards,
Marti
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2010-12-26 16:11:07 | Re: concurrent IO in postgres? |
| Previous Message | Mladen Gogala | 2010-12-26 04:30:32 | Re: concurrent IO in postgres? |