From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Question about Bitmap Heap Scan/BitmapAnd
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:34:49 -0500
Message-ID: <26633.1171557289@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070215162733.GO4682@alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <1d4e0c10702130832i35484abfmb229f5d0b4d9223b@mail.gmail.com>
<1285.1171385353@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1d4e0c10702130917x5b6ddaf7g540bfe1f7c93b728@mail.gmail.com>
<1977.1171389065@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1d4e0c10702150805i73097134uf45ce1faa80e3763@mail.gmail.com>
<20070215162733.GO4682@alvh.no-ip.org>
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Guillaume Smet escribió:
>> Is it normal I have no recheck cond and the index cond of Bitmap Index
>> Scan is in the filter? Is it also a consequence of the code you
>> pointed?
> It is in the filter, is it not? Having a recheck would be redundant.
Yeah, but his question is why is it in the filter? I think that the
answer is probably "because the index is lossy for this operator,
so it has to be checked even if the bitmap didn't become lossy".
You'd have to check the GIST opclass definition to be sure.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@commandprompt.com, guillaume.smet@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Question about Bitmap Heap Scan/BitmapAnd
In-Reply-To: <26633.1171557289@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox