am Fri, dem 20.04.2007, um 12:59:01 +0100 mailte Richard Huxton folgendes:
> A. Kretschmer wrote:
> >
> >It's not my problem - i found it in a forum (german)
> >http://pg-forum.de/showthread.php?t=1332
> >
> >If the list contains up to 195 entrys -> up to 195 bitmap index scans
> >and BitmapOr ->
A. Kretschmer wrote:
It's not my problem - i found it in a forum (german)
http://pg-forum.de/showthread.php?t=1332
If the list contains up to 195 entrys -> up to 195 bitmap index scans
and BitmapOr -> 7.839ms
If the list contains 196 entrys -> seq-scan -> 5591.567ms
It looks like it's gettin
am Fri, dem 20.04.2007, um 12:03:44 +0100 mailte Richard Huxton folgendes:
> A. Kretschmer wrote:
> >in a SELECT with a condition 'WHERE foo IN (1,2,3,4,...)' with a large
> ...
> >But if the list increase the planner choose an seq-scan. The amount of
> >values in the list is about 200 and the tab
A. Kretschmer wrote:
in a SELECT with a condition 'WHERE foo IN (1,2,3,4,...)' with a large
...
But if the list increase the planner choose an seq-scan. The amount of
values in the list is about 200 and the table has about 250.000 rows.
How can we avoid the seq-scan?
Are you sure you'd want
Hello,
a friend of mine has got a problem:
in a SELECT with a condition 'WHERE foo IN (1,2,3,4,...)' with a large
list within. The optimizer choose a rewrite to many OR's and a bitmap
index scan on the index, no problem, fast.
But if the list increase the planner choose an seq-scan. The amount o
