On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Howard Cole wrote:
I think I may have answered my own question partially, the problem may be how
I structure the query.
Original statement:
"Nested Loop (cost=4.40..65.08 rows=16 width=8)"
" -> Function Scan on q (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=32)"
" -> Bitmap Heap Scan on email (cost=4.40..64.87 rows=16 width=489)"
" Filter: (email.fts @@ q.q)"
" -> Bitmap Index Scan on email_fts_index (cost=0.00..4.40 rows=16
width=0)"
" Index Cond: (email.fts @@ q.q)"
Second statement:
"Bitmap Heap Scan on email (cost=4.40..64.91 rows=16 width=8)"
" Filter: (fts @@ '''howard'''::tsquery)"
" -> Bitmap Index Scan on email_fts_index (cost=0.00..4.40 rows=16 width=0)"
" Index Cond: (fts @@ '''howard'''::tsquery)"
As far as I can see, that shouldn't make any difference. Both queries
still do the bitmap heap scan, and have almost exactly the same cost.
Matthew
--
Lord grant me patience, and I want it NOW!
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
