Re: bitmap-index-scan faster than seq-scan on full-table-scan (gin index)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: bitmap-index-scan faster than seq-scan on full-table-scan (gin index)
Дата
Msg-id 18522.1275336564@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на bitmap-index-scan faster than seq-scan on full-table-scan (gin index)  (Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>)
Ответы Re: bitmap-index-scan faster than seq-scan on full-table-scan (gin index)  (Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc> writes:
> Conceptually searching for the "full dataset" would always be fastest
> solved by a seq-scan. The query planner enforces this so much, so not
> even "enable_seqscan=off" can convince it to to something else.
> ...
> Would it be possible to implement the "Filtering" using the gin-index and
> a subsequent visibillity-check as on the index-scan?

You're failing to make any sense whatsoever.  If you're reading the full
dataset, there is no filter condition.  If there is a potentially
indexable filter condition, the planner will certainly consider that.

Personally I think the issue here has got more to do with the
non-immutability of the single-argument form of to_tsquery, which means
it gets re-evaluated at every row during a seqscan.  Do your results
change if you work with to_tsquery('english', ...)  (or whatever your
default TS config is)?
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: why do we have rd_istemp?
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: why do we have rd_istemp?