Re: performance impact of index
From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 23:11:56 -0700
Message-ID: <1085638322.274883_at_yasure>
>
>
> Would you mind proving your statement "bitmapped indexes are only useful
> when the cardinality is relatively low (about 1.000 distinct values max)"?
>
> I'd be interested to see how you came up with that number, and the
> ratios you've used for it.
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 23:11:56 -0700
Message-ID: <1085638322.274883_at_yasure>
Bricklen wrote:
> mrFarenheit wrote:
>
>>> >> I your schema is purely read-only, you can create as much indexes as >> you want. But bitmapped indexes are only useful when the cardinality >> is relatively low (about 1.000 distinct values max). >> In other cases (more than one thousand distinct values for the >> column), it can be better to use b-tree indexes, but don't forget that >> the storage needed is much bigger. >> You can alos deal with function-based indexes if you want. >> .
>
>
> Would you mind proving your statement "bitmapped indexes are only useful
> when the cardinality is relatively low (about 1.000 distinct values max)"?
>
> I'd be interested to see how you came up with that number, and the
> ratios you've used for it.
I would too. From everything I've read and done I'd use a number more closer to 10.
-- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)Received on Thu May 27 2004 - 08:11:56 CEST