On Thu, 5 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Sergey E. Koposov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And I coadded the "flat profiles" of first two (index scan) queries and
> > compared it with the flat profile of bitmap scan:
>
> Thanks, I had been thinking of doing that same calculation but hadn't
> got round to it yet. It looks like the bitmap case is actually a little
> ahead on buffer access (as you'd expect) and btree work (which is
> surprising because it ought to be dead even; are these numbers very
> repeatable?). Where we are losing is mostly on the actual manipulation
Yes, all those timings are rather stable and have been obtained on the very
unloaded system (and in fully cached regime).
With Best regards,
Sergey Koposov
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
