Greetings, Consider this:
create table t10 (c1 int, c2 int);
create index on t10 (c1) where c2 > 5;
\d t10
Table "sfrost.t10"
Column | Type | Modifiers
--------+---------+-----------
c1 | integer |
c2 | integer |
Indexes:
"t10_c1_idx" btree (c1) WHERE c2 > 5
insert into t10 select * from generate_series(1,10000) a, generate_series(1,10)
b;
(repeat a bunch of times, if desired)
vacuum analyze t10;
set work_mem = '64kB';
set enable_indexscan = false;
set enable_seqscan = false;
=*> explain analyze select * from t10 where c2 > 6;
QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bitmap Heap Scan on t10 (cost=6496.49..15037.50 rows=318653 width=8) (actual
time=34.682..116.236 rows=320000 loops=1)
Recheck Cond: (c2 > 5)
Rows Removed by Index Recheck: 327502
Filter: (c2 > 6)
Rows Removed by Filter: 80000
Heap Blocks: exact=642 lossy=2898
-> Bitmap Index Scan on t10_c1_idx (cost=0.00..6416.83 rows=400081
width=0) (actual time=34.601..34.601 rows=400000 loops=1)
Planning time: 0.087 ms
Execution time: 124.229 ms
(9 rows)
Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but isn't it a bit redundant to
have both a Recheck condition (which is the predicate of the index) and
a Filter condition (which is the user's predicate) when we've already
decided that the user's predicate must result in a subset of the
index's, as, otherwise, we wouldn't be able to use the index in the
first place?
In other words, it seems like we shouldn't need a Filter in the above
Bitmap Heap Scan, instead we should just make the Recheck be (c2 > 6).
I've not looked into the code side of this at all and there may be
reasons why this is hard to do, but it seems like a worthwhile
improvement to consider doing, though perhaps I'm missing some reason
why we need both the Recheck and the Filter in such cases for
correctness.
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
