Regarding this earlier thread:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20160524173914.GA11880%40telsasoft.com#20160524173914.GA11880@telsasoft.com
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> Summary: Non-unique btree indices are returning CTIDs for rows with same
> value of indexed column not in logical order, imposing a high performance
> penalty.
I have to point out that by "logical" I clearly meant "physical", hopefully
nobody was too misled..
On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 12:28:47PM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> writes:
> >> So correlated index scans look extra favourable vs bitmap index scans
> >> because bitmap heap scans consider random page costs sans correlation
> >> effects (even though correlation applies to bitmap heap scans as
> >> well).
> >
> > Really? How? The index ordering has nothing to do with the order in
> > which heap tuples will be visited.
>
> It is not the order itself, but the density.
>
> If the index is read in a range scan (as opposed to =ANY scan), and
> the index lead column is correlated with the table ordering, then the
> parts of the table that need to be visited will be much denser than if
> there were no correlation. But Claudio is saying that this is not
> being accounted for.
I didn't completely understand Claudio/Jeff here, and not sure if we're on the
same page. For queries on these tables, the index scan was very slow, due to
fragmented index on non-unique column, and seq scan would have been (was)
faster (even if it means reading 70GB and filtering out 6 of 7 days' data).
That was resolved by added a nightly reindex job (.. which sometimes competes
with other maintenance and has trouble running every table every night).
But I did find that someone else had previously reported this problem (in a
strikingly similar context and message, perhaps clearer than mine):
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/520D6610.8040907%40emulex.com#520D6610.8040907@emulex.com
I also found this older thread:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/n6cmpug13b9rk1srebjvhphg0lm8dou1kn%404ax.com#n6cmpug13b9rk1srebjvhphg0lm8dou1kn@4ax.com
There was mention of a TODO item:
* Compute index correlation on CREATE INDEX and ANALYZE, use it for index
* scan cost estimation
.. but perhaps I misunderstand and that's long since resolved ?
Justin
