Re: On-disk bitmap index patch

On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 12:36:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> mark@mark.mielke.cc writes:
> > Reading 1/4, for a larger table, has a good chance of being faster than
> > reading 4/4 of the table. :-)
> Really?
> 
> If you have to hit one tuple out of four, it's pretty much guaranteed
> that you will need to fetch every heap page.  So using an index provides
> zero I/O savings on the heap side, and any fetches needed to read the
> index are pure cost.  Now you have to demonstrate that the CPU costs
> involved in processing the index are significantly cheaper than the cost
> of just testing the WHERE qual at every heap tuple --- not a bet that's
> likely to win at a one-in-four ratio.

Haha. Of course - but that's assuming uniform spread of the values.
Next I would try clustering the table on the bitmap index... :-)

My databases aren't as large as many of yours. Most or all of them
will fit in 1 Gbytes of RAM. The I/O cost isn't substantial for these,
but the WHERE clause might be.

But yeah - we don't know. Waste of code or performance boost.

Cheers,
mark

-- 
mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com     __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
 One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all                      and in the darkness
bindthem...
 
                          http://mark.mielke.cc/