Re: Question about Bitmap Heap Scan/BitmapAnd - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Question about Bitmap Heap Scan/BitmapAnd
Date
Msg-id 1977.1171389065@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Question about Bitmap Heap Scan/BitmapAnd  ("Guillaume Smet" <guillaume.smet@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Question about Bitmap Heap Scan/BitmapAnd  ("Guillaume Smet" <guillaume.smet@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
"Guillaume Smet" <guillaume.smet@gmail.com> writes:
> So the basic explanation is that it's in both lists due to the partial
> index and only qpqual keeps the condition? I would have expected the
> opposite but it doesn't change anything I suppose?

It gets the right answer, yes.  I'm not sure if we could safely put the
condition into the recheck instead of the filter.  The particular code
I showed you has to go the direction it does, because a condition in the
filter has to be checked even if the bitmap is not lossy.  I seem to
recall concluding that we had to recheck partial-index conditions even
if the bitmap is not lossy, but I can't reconstruct my reasoning at the
moment.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Guillaume Smet"
Date:
Subject: Re: Question about Bitmap Heap Scan/BitmapAnd
Next
From: "Campbell, Lance"
Date:
Subject: CPU Usage