> I hope tomorrow execute explain with the bitmapscan and seqscan enabled.
> bitmapscans are almost always faster?

Like all the rest, they're just a tool, which works great when used in
its intended purpose :

- Fetching just a few percent of the rows from a table is better served
by an index scan
- Fetching a lot of rows (>30-50%) from a table is better served by a seq
scan
- Bitmap scan comes in between and it's a very welcome addition.

Also Bitmap scan will save your life if you have complex searches, like
if you run a dating site and have an index on blondes and an index on boob
size, because it can use several indexes in complex AND/OR queries.

Common wisdom says simpler databases can be faster than postgres on
simple queries.

Reality check with pg 8.1 driven by PHP :

- SELECT 1
mysql 5 ~ 42 us
postgres ~ 70 us

- SELECT * FROM users WHERE id=1
mysql 5 ~ 180 us
postgres ~ 160 us

Of course people doing stupid things, like using the database to keep a
hit counter on their website which is updated on every hit, will say that
postgres is slow.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly