Thanks Robert!
So you indicate that the so called bitmap index scan, a.k.a in-memory bitmap indexes (right?), already adds such an improvement when it comes to optimized response time on large query sets (having the characteristics as normally used to identify cases where bitmap indexes improves performance like: low cardinality keys, large data volumes etc), so that the on-disk indexes are not really needed or atleast not worth wile implementing?
Regards,
Christian
2007/6/25, Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>:On Thursday 21 June 2007 04:39, Christan Josefsson wrote:
> Ok.
>
> Big thanks for the information.
>
> You mentioned Bizgres, do you have any more information in that direction,
> or do you know who to contact regarding information on Bizgres bitmap
> indexes. If there is a bitmap index patch in Bizgres which can be applied
> to the latest stable source of PostgreSQL then I have a solution until 8.4
> (which I according to your answers is the assumed release for introducing
> on-disk bitmap indexes).
>
If you really want to see on-disk bitmaps in, you might want to study the
patches and the missing vacuum related bits and then think about submitting
an updated version. My take on the future of that patch is the original
developers aren't terribly motivated to finish it, in much part because some
of the testing people have done vs. 8.3 shows it solves an even smaller
number of issues than originally hoped. my .02 anyway.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
