Thank you Tomas. I did execute the queries against a dataset that was
representative of what we expect the production dataset to have. By higher
volume I meant more transactions happening against the data, We would expect
the data size to increase over time and when we executed against a data
On 14 Červenec 2014, 18:02, Magers, James wrote:
> Tomas,
>
> Thank you for the recommendation. In this case, The bitmap scan runs
> quite quickly, however in production were data may or may not be cached
> and at higher volumes I am trying to ensure the process will continue to
> execute efficien
Tomas,
Thank you for the recommendation. In this case, The bitmap scan runs quite
quickly, however in production were data may or may not be cached and at higher
volumes I am trying to ensure the process will continue to execute efficiently
and reduce the impact of the process on other process
On 14 Červenec 2014, 16:00, Magers, James wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> I would have to agree that the current results do indicate that. However,
> I have run this explain analyze multiple times and the timing varies from
> about 4ms to 35ms using the Bitmap Heap Scan. Here is an explain plan
> from Thurs
Thomas,
I would have to agree that the current results do indicate that. However, I
have run this explain analyze multiple times and the timing varies from about
4ms to 35ms using the Bitmap Heap Scan. Here is an explain plan from Thursday
of last week that shows about 21ms. Part of the issu
Magers, James, 14.07.2014 15:18:
> Thank you. I executed the query this morning after disabling the scan types.
>
> I am including links to explain.depesz output for each of the three
> variations that I executed.
>
> indexscan and bitmapscan off: http://explain.depesz.com/s/sIx
> seqscan a
Thomas,
Thank you. I executed the query this morning after disabling the scan types.
I am including links to explain.depesz output for each of the three variations
that I executed.
indexscan and bitmapscan off: http://explain.depesz.com/s/sIx
seqscan and bitmapscan off: http://explain.depes
Magers, James, 14.07.2014 04:20:
> Thank you for your feedback. I am attaching the requested information.
> While I do not think the query is necessarily inefficient, I believe a
> sequence scan would be more efficient.
You can try
set enable_indexscan = off;
set enable_bitmapscan = off;
