| From: | "Erik Rijkers" <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Minmax indexes |
| Date: | 2013-09-25 22:34:43 |
| Message-ID: | b9c303579bf1a2bd8f080264865cc93b.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, September 25, 2013 22:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> [minmax-5.patch]
I have the impression it's not quite working correctly.
The attached program returns different results for different values of enable_bitmapscan (consistently).
( Btw, I had to make the max_locks_per_transaction higher for even not-so-large tables -- is that expected? For a 100M row
table, max_locks_per_transaction=1024 was not enough; I set it to 2048. Might be worth some documentation, eventually. )
From eyeballing the results it looks like the minmax result (i.e. the result set with enable_bitmapscan = 1) yields only
the last part because the only 'last' rows seem to be present (see the values in column i in table tmm in the attached
program).
Thanks,
Erikjan Rijkers
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| test.sh | application/x-shellscript | 1.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2013-09-26 03:13:30 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-09-25 22:20:17 | Re: [PATCH] bitmap indexes |