Re: Optimizer & boolean syntax

From: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Daniele Orlandi <daniele(at)orlandi(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Optimizer & boolean syntax
Date: 2002-11-21 22:59:39
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.33.0211211558530.23988-100000@css120.ihs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

> > > I think his point is that they _should_ be equivalent. Surely there's
> > > something in the optimiser that discards '=true' stuff, like 'a=a'
> should be
> > > discarded?
> >
> > I figure that's what he meant, but it isn't what was said. ;)
> >
> > "col" isn't of the general form "indexkey op constant" or "constant op
> > indexkey" which I presume it's looking for given the comments in
> > indxpath.c. I'm not sure what the best way to make it work would be given
> > that presumably we'd want to make col IS TRUE/FALSE use an index at the
> > same time (since that appears to not do so as well).
>
> Not that I see the point of indexing booleans, but hey :)

While full indexes do seem futile, partial indexes can be quite useful.

select articles from forum where approved is false

if 99.9% of all articles are approved would be quite common.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2002-11-21 23:01:10 Re: Optimizer & boolean syntax
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2002-11-21 22:55:54 Re: Optimizer & boolean syntax