On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 1:40 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> FWIW, I disagree completely. I think it's entirely natural to
> consider bitmap index scans to be a subset of index scans, so that
> enable_indexscan should affect both. I admit that the current set
> of GUCs doesn't let you force a bitmap scan over a plain one, but
> I can't recall many people complaining about that. I don't follow
> the argument that this definition is somehow unmaintainable, either.
Well... but that's not what the GUC does either. Not now, and not with
the patch.
What happens right now is:
- If you set enable_indexscan=false, then disable_cost is added to the
cost of index scan paths and the cost of index-only scan paths.
- If you set enable_indexonlyscan=false, then index-only scan paths
are not generated at all.
Bitmap scans are controlled by enable_bitmapscan.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
