On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 1:40 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > FWIW, I disagree completely. I think it's entirely natural to > consider bitmap index scans to be a subset of index scans, so that > enable_indexscan should affect both. I admit that the current set > of GUCs doesn't let you force a bitmap scan over a plain one, but > I can't recall many people complaining about that. I don't follow > the argument that this definition is somehow unmaintainable, either.
Well... but that's not what the GUC does either. Not now, and not with the patch. What happens right now is: - If you set enable_indexscan=false, then disable_cost is added to the cost of index scan paths and the cost of index-only scan paths. - If you set enable_indexonlyscan=false, then index-only scan paths are not generated at all. Bitmap scans are controlled by enable_bitmapscan. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
