Re: Bloom index cost model seems to be wrong

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jeff Janes
Тема Re: Bloom index cost model seems to be wrong
Дата
Msg-id CAMkU=1x9ML8PPmPKM0x7OVv6oUFn4b8s50suj2jcCOT78TLkzQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Bloom index cost model seems to be wrong  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: Bloom index cost model seems to be wrong
Список pgsql-performance

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:42 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net> writes:
> The bloom index is only used if either Seq Scan is disabled or if the random_page_cost is set to 1 (anything about 1 triggers a Seq Scan on my Windows laptop).

Hm.  blcostestimate is using the default cost calculation, except for

        /* We have to visit all index tuples anyway */
        costs.numIndexTuples = index->tuples;

which essentially tells genericcostestimate to assume that every index
tuple will be visited.  This obviously is going to increase the cost
estimate; maybe there's something wrong with that?

I assumed (without investigating yet) that genericcostestimate is applying a cpu_operator_cost (or a few of them) on each index tuple, while the premise of a bloom index is that you do very fast bit-fiddling, not more expense SQL operators, for each tuple and then do the recheck only on what survives to the table tuple part.

Cheers,

Jeff

В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Bloom index cost model seems to be wrong
Следующее
От: Jeff Janes
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Performance regressions found using sqlfuzz