Re: Bitmap scan is undercosted? - boolean correlation

2017-12-02 Thread Justin Pryzby
On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 05:27:51PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote: > I think the non-extended stats code also has trouble with booleans. > pg_stats gives me a correlation of 0.8 or higher for the flag column. It's not due to the boolean though; you see the same thing if you do: CREATE INDEX aaa_f ON aaa

Re: Bitmap scan is undercosted?

2017-12-02 Thread Jeff Janes
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Janes writes: > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 11:08 PM, Vitaliy Garnashevich < > > vgarnashev...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> # x4 tuple/operator costs - bitmap scan still a bit cheaper > >> set seq_page_cost = 1.0; > >> set random_page_cost = 1.0; > >

Re: Bitmap scan is undercosted?

2017-12-02 Thread Tom Lane
Jeff Janes writes: > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 11:08 PM, Vitaliy Garnashevich < > vgarnashev...@gmail.com> wrote: >> # x4 tuple/operator costs - bitmap scan still a bit cheaper >> set seq_page_cost = 1.0; >> set random_page_cost = 1.0; >> set cpu_tuple_cost = 0.04; >> set cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.02;

Re: Bitmap scan is undercosted?

2017-12-02 Thread Jeff Janes
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 11:08 PM, Vitaliy Garnashevich < vgarnashev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > seq_page_cost = 0.0 > random_page_cost = 0.0 > explain analyze select * from aaa where num = 2 and flag = true; > > Bitmap Heap Scan on aaa (cost=753.00..2003.00 rows=10257 width=5) (actual > time=82.212