Re: Re: Index scan and bitmap index scan - hard to understand how planner chooses
| От | Jeff Janes |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Re: Index scan and bitmap index scan - hard to understand how planner chooses |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMkU=1y3STe7eJ19GPVQvytKJvmRGy-dm9oCkfGUbuqwbsHNzA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Index scan and bitmap index scan - hard to understand how planner chooses (boraldomaster <boraldomaster@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Index scan and bitmap index scan - hard to understand how
planner chooses
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:42 AM, boraldomaster <boraldomaster@gmail.com> wrote:
This seems to be fixed in 9.2.
Which version were you originally seeing it in? I still see that behavior (or something close to it) in 9.4dev.
It stabilizes after doing a "vacuum analyze" (not just "analyze"), but that is because it then switches to Index Only Scan.
I haven't pinned it down exactly, but it seems that there are two issues.
One is that there are two estimates of the row returned, one for the whole query (which is visible in EXPLAIN, and is spot on) and one for the index patch, which is very wrong for 0000% case (the estimate was 1 row rather than 100, visible only in the debugger or with special logging code added). The other is that the correlation between index/column order and table order is thought to be 0 when it is really 1.
Cheers,
Jeff
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: