Re: On-disk bitmap index patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: On-disk bitmap index patch
Date
Msg-id 28750.1153700718@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: On-disk bitmap index patch  (Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au>)
Responses Re: On-disk bitmap index patch  ("Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>)
Re: On-disk bitmap index patch  (Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>)
Re: On-disk bitmap index patch  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au> writes:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, the main problem I've got with this is that a new index AM is a
>> pretty large burden, and no one's made the slightest effort to sell
>> pghackers on taking this on.

> For low cardinality sets, bitmaps greatly out perform btree.

If the column is sufficiently low cardinality, you might as well just do
a seqscan --- you'll be hitting most of the heap's pages anyway.  I'm
still waiting to be convinced that there's a sweet spot wide enough to
justify supporting another index AM.  (I'm also wondering whether this
doesn't overlap the use-case for GIN.)
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gavin Sherry
Date:
Subject: Re: On-disk bitmap index patch
Next
From: "Luke Lonergan"
Date:
Subject: Re: On-disk bitmap index patch