On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:43:23PM -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote: > On 7/28/06 1:25 PM, "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What we don't want to happen is for us to release bitmapped indexes, and > > find out later that btree is better in all cases. Then we have to tell > > people not to use bitmapped indexes until we fix it in the next major > > releasse. FYI, that is basically where we are right now with hash > > indexes. > On this thread people have presented results that show clear and irrefutable > evidence that there are use cases where bitmap indexes outperform Btree for > many datatypes on realistic problems, including the TPC-H benchmark.
Irrefutable is a little optimistic, don't you think? :-) There is reason to believe that a bitmap index is useful in some scenarios. We're not yet clear on what these are, whether they apply to production use scenarios, or whether b-tree could not be optimized to be better. I support you - I want to see these great things for myself. But irrefutable? Irrefutable is not true. :-) Cheers, mark -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings