On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Shaul Dar wrote:
> Our typical query select 300 "random" rows (could be located in different blocks) from the table based on another
> column+index, and then filters them down to ~50 based on this the bit field.
So it seems that you're already using an index to fetch 300 rows from a
big table, and then filtering that down to ~50 based on the über-complex
stuff.
That's the right way to do it. There isn't really an appropriate place to
add another index into this query plan. Filtering 300 rows is peanuts for
Postgres.
You quite probably won't get any benefit from having a bitwise index,
unless you can make a multi-column index with the existing index stuff
first and then the bitwise stuff as a second column. However, that sounds
like more effort than benefit.
If I have my analysis wrong, perhaps you could post your EXPLAIN ANALYSE
results so we can see what you mean.
Matthew
--
What goes up must come down. Ask any system administrator.
