AIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: jaba the mobzy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 11:42:32 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bitmap Heap Scan anomaly
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2007-05-03 at
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 14:33 -0700, jaba the mobzy wrote:
>> mycorr_100 took 11.4 s to run although it had to fetch 10 row from
>> the base table.
>> mycorr_10 took 24.4 s to run although it had to fetch 10563 row from
>> the base table.
> This is becaus
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 14:33 -0700, jaba the mobzy wrote:
> mycorr_100 took 11.4 s to run although it had to fetch 10 row from
> the base table.
> mycorr_10 took 24.4 s to run although it had to fetch 10563 row from
> the base table.
This is because the physical distribution of data is differen
I have done the following test and I am unable to understand the results. I
have tried debugging the code and I have reached down to the Storage Layer. I
am playing with the optimizer etc.. I no very little about the internals of the
Executor.
If you could point out to me what possible explan
