From: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Optimize IS DISTINCT FROM NULL => IS NOT NULL |
Date: | 2012-03-08 18:16:00 |
Message-ID: | CABRT9RBxjbMu00EHGb0Gg5FG4-HXfDkzYdq62GQPvUuEOHAeeQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 19:35, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Uh ... how much do we care about that? I can't say that I've heard many
> people complain about the fact that IS [NOT] DISTINCT FROM is poorly
> optimized -- which it is, in general, and this patch chips away at that
> only a tiny bit, not enough to make it recommendable.
Agreed, but it was very simple to code, so I figured why not.
> Plus I don't see why anyone would write the specific case
> "IS [NOT] DISTINCT FROM NULL" when they could write half as much.
Well I can see how it might be useful in generated queries, when
comparing a column to a parameter. If they're using IS DISTINCT FROM
then it's reasonable to expect that the parameter could be NULL
sometimes.
But I don't feel strongly about this, maybe it's not worth
complicating this big function further. :)
Regards,
Marti
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-03-08 18:22:53 | regress bug |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-08 17:35:36 | Re: [PATCH] Optimize IS DISTINCT FROM NULL => IS NOT NULL |