Re: BUG #2075: Strange choice of bitmap-index-scan

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Arjen van der Meijden
Тема Re: BUG #2075: Strange choice of bitmap-index-scan
Дата
Msg-id 438C8525.2070501@tweakers.net
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: BUG #2075: Strange choice of bitmap-index-scan  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-bugs
Hi Tom,

The "zichtbaar" as false is indeed a very rare case and appearantly
isn't occuring right now. There are indeed 46631 rows in total, and all
46631 have the "zichtbaar" as true. Which reminds me to adjust the index
anyway ;-)

It appears to be happening if the fraction of zichtbaar's is small
enough. With 1 and 8 as false, it happens, with 27 as false its not
happening.

Best regards,

Arjen

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Arjen" <acmmailing@tweakers.net> writes:
>>    ->  BitmapAnd  (cost=5.62..5.62 rows=1 width=0)
>>          ->  Bitmap Index Scan on pwprodukten_cat2_popuindex
>> (cost=0.00..2.50 rows=144 width=0)
>>                Index Cond: (cat2 = 51)
>>          ->  Bitmap Index Scan on pwprodukten_cat2_zichtbaar
>> (cost=0.00..2.86 rows=144 width=0)
>>                Index Cond: ((cat2 = 51) AND (zichtbaar = true))
>
> Hmmm ... I can reproduce that if *all* the rows in the table have
> zichtbaar = true (or at least the ANALYZE stats say so) ... is that
> the case in your data?
>
>             regards, tom lane
>

В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: BUG #2075: Strange choice of bitmap-index-scan
Следующее
От: "Martin Pelikan"
Дата:
Сообщение: BUG #2077: Hiding databases which I am not owner