From: <postgresql@foo.me.uk>
To: "'postgres performance list'" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
References: <092a01cdd230$ff6143c0$fe23cb40$@foo.me.uk>
	<CAGTBQpaKOfZs+qy+S7CCPcTg7PYOrwgcQAXgWV88cQTn-BFstg@mail.gmail.com>
	<098101cdd24d$892524c0$9b6f6e40$@foo.me.uk>
	<CAGTBQpb2FZfbhLD_vwUJfNja-KHHypJ6zXrOPjsUwn0+prvtcA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGTBQpb2FZfbhLD_vwUJfNja-KHHypJ6zXrOPjsUwn0+prvtcA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 18:54:29 -0000
Message-ID: <098601cdd250$ce2f85d0$6a8e9170$@foo.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AQE7bKfasxp9xMk0I5yxURpgMQ+bBAG7NE8VAkUnRdQCz7DsFJj3R3Bg
Content-Language: en-gb
Subject: Re: Slow query: bitmap scan troubles
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

Ah, okay - my reasoning was there's a big fancy-pants raid array behind it
that makes disk operations faster relative to CPU ones.

I'll test it and see if it actually makes any difference.

-----Original Message-----
From: Claudio Freire [mailto:klaussfreire@gmail.com] 
Sent: 04 December 2012 18:33
To: Philip Scott
Cc: postgresql@foo.me.uk; postgres performance list
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Slow query: bitmap scan troubles

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Philip Scott <pscott@foo.me.uk> wrote:
> r_p_c 2-> 1 (s_p_c 1->0.5):

Is this really necessary?

(looks like a no-op, unless your CPU is slow)


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance