I stumbled upon this question:
https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/229413
in a nutshell: the bloom index is not used with the example from the manual.
The bloom index is only used if either Seq Scan is disabled or if the
random_page_cost is set to 1 (anything about 1 triggers a Seq Scan on my
Windows laptop).
If parallel execution is disabled, then the bloom index is only used if the
random_page_cost is lower than 4.
This does not use the index:
set random_page_cost = 4;
set max_parallel_workers_per_gather=0;
explain (analyze, buffers)
select *
from tbloom
where i2 = 898732
and i5 = 123451;
This uses the bloom index:
set random_page_cost = 3.5;
set max_parallel_workers_per_gather=0;
explain (analyze, buffers)
select *
from tbloom
where i2 = 898732
and i5 = 123451;
And this uses the index also:
set random_page_cost = 1;
explain (analyze, buffers)
select *
from tbloom
where i2 = 898732
and i5 = 123451;
This is the plan with when the index is used (either through "enable_seqscan =
off" or "random_page_cost = 1")
Bitmap Heap Scan on tbloom (cost=138436.69..138440.70 rows=1 width=24) (actual
time=42.444..42.444 rows=0 loops=1)
Recheck Cond: ((i2 = 898732) AND (i5 = 123451))
Rows Removed by Index Recheck: 2400
Heap Blocks: exact=2365
Buffers: shared hit=21973
-> Bitmap Index Scan on bloomidx (cost=0.00..138436.69 rows=1 width=0)
(actual time=40.756..40.756 rows=2400 loops=1)
Index Cond: ((i2 = 898732) AND (i5 = 123451))
Buffers: shared hit=19608
Planning Time: 0.075 ms
Execution Time: 42.531 ms
And this is the plan when everything left at default settings:
Seq Scan on tbloom (cost=0.00..133695.80 rows=1 width=24) (actual
time=1220.116..1220.116 rows=0 loops=1)
Filter: ((i2 = 898732) AND (i5 = 123451))
Rows Removed by Filter: 10000000
Buffers: shared hit=4697 read=58998
I/O Timings: read=354.670
Planning Time: 0.075 ms
Execution Time: 1220.144 ms
Can this be considered a bug in the cost model of the bloom index
implementation?
Or is it expected that this is only used if random access is really cheap?
Thomas
