Re: performance of bitmap scans in nested loop joins
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: performance of bitmap scans in nested loop joins |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 18748.1115264904@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | performance of bitmap scans in nested loop joins ("Sergey E. Koposov" <math@sai.msu.ru>) |
Ответы |
Re: performance of bitmap scans in nested loop joins
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Sergey E. Koposov" <math@sai.msu.ru> writes: > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Tom Lane wrote: >> The latter is (or should be) doing slightly *less* work, so why is it >> taking almost twice as much time? Can you get gprof profiles of the >> two cases? > I've got them. I attached two files with a little bit truncated output of > gprof. I figured out part of the problem: I had made nodeBitmapIndexscan re-open the index on each call, thinking that that would save amrescan calls. But an amrescan is a whole lot cheaper than index open/close, so that was a bad tradeoff. This seems to account for about half of the slowdown you exhibited. I'm not sure where the other half went ... gprof isn't turning up any obvious candidates. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: