I don't think it even has to be so specific. We should just always
rewrite bool <> bool into bool = NOT bool.
Hmm. That only has a 50/50 chance of creating an indexable clause.
Perhaps we could even rewrite it as "a = NOT b AND NOT a = b".
On 2009-07-17, at 3:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> ... But again, this is data type specific knowledge.
> Actually, now that I think about it, the planner already has
> datatype-specific knowledge about boolean equality (see
> simplify_boolean_equality). It would take just a few more lines of
> there to recognize "x <> true" and "x <> false" as additional variant
> spellings of the generic "x" or "NOT x" constructs. Not sure if it's
> worth the trouble though; how many people really write such things?
> If you really wanted to take it to extremes, you could also reduce
> cases like "x > false", but that's starting to get a bit silly.
> regards, tom lane
> Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-07-17 16:17:56|
|Subject: Re: bug or simply not enough stack space? |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-07-17 14:21:43|
|Subject: Re: Huge speed penalty using <>TRUE instead of =FALSE |