Tom Lane wrote: > > It will also keep long lists of ORs from turning what would have been > > a >10% index scan into a seq scan, yes? > > It should look more attractive than the old method, yes. At some point > you still end up deciding you might as well seqscan. I'm not sure > whether the cost estimation model I put in last night gets the crossover > point right --- we'll need to get some field experience as soon as the > code is reasonably functional. > > That reminds me: at least for testing purposes, it'd be a good idea > to have an additional planner "enable" switch for this plan type, > analogous to enable_seqscan and enable_indexscan. Any objections to > adding one? Should I call it "enable_bitmapscan", or can someone > think of a less ugly name?
I think "enable_bitmapscan" is the best we can do. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
