Re: query planner does not canonicalize infix operators

Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Looks like we're missing out some operator properties, like the neutral
> element and if the operator is transitive, commutative or associative. I
> think I remember us talking about how knowing about operators being
> associative would also help optimize a class of join problems.

We do understand, and use, transitivity for btree equality operators
(cf mergejoin planning, EquivalenceClasses, etc). I have limited
enthusiasm for introducing a more general concept, because it seems like
doing anything with it would add a great deal more planning effort for
(typically) little reward. I can imagine cases where, say, deducing
"a < c" from "a < b and b < c" would be helpful ... but they don't come
up in common queries.

regards, tom lane