From: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexey Bashtanov <bashtanov(at)imap(dot)cc>, Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans |
Date: | 2020-03-20 00:04:43 |
Message-ID: | CAAaqYe-CtGT=RSbbVGj=aFtHbHX2DuLeWRPLg-UpoVnYv6wY=Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 9:08 AM James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> ...
> One question though: if I change the query to:
> explain (analyze, buffers) select count(*) from exp where a between 50
> and 100 and d between 5 and 10;
> then I get a parallel bitmap heap scan, and I only see exact heap
> blocks (see attached explain output).
>
> Does the original optimization cover parallel bitmap heap scans like
> this? If not, I think this patch is likely ready for committer. If so,
> then we still need support for stats tracking and explain output for
> parallel nodes.
I've looked at the code a bit more deeply, and the implementation
means the optimization applies to parallel scans also. I've also
convinced myself that the change in explain.c will cover both
non-parallel and parallel plans.
Since that's the only question I saw, and the patch seems pretty
uncontroversial/not requiring any real design choices, I've gone ahead
and marked this patch as ready for committer.
Thanks for working on this!
James
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-03-20 00:11:22 | Re: Add A Glossary |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-03-20 00:00:19 | Re: nbtree: assertion failure in _bt_killitems() for posting tuple |