Bitmap index thoughts - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Bitmap index thoughts
Date
Msg-id 45917C5B.6090709@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Bitmap index thoughts
Re: Bitmap index thoughts
List pgsql-hackers
I've been skimming through the bitmap index patch...

A scan needs to access at least five pages:

1. B-tree index (root+others, depending on depth)
2. The auxiliary heap page
3. bitmap index meta page
4. LOV page
5. bitmap page

That seems like a lot of indirection. A high startup cost is probably ok 
for typical bitmap index use cases and most of the needed pages should 
stay in memory, but could we simplify this? Why do we need the auxiliary 
heap, couldn't we just store the blk+offset of the LOV item directly in 
the b-tree index item?

And instead of having separate LOV pages that store a number of LOV 
items, how about storing each LOV item on a page of it's own, and using 
the rest of the page to store the last chunk of the bitmap. That would 
eliminate one page access, but more importantly, maybe we could then get 
rid of all the bm_last_* attributes in BMLOVItemData that complicate the 
patch quite a bit, while preserving the performance.

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Andrew Dunstan"
Date:
Subject: Re: Win32 WEXITSTATUS too simplistic
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Win32 WEXITSTATUS too simplistic