Aaron, The cost differential is not that high here is it? Or are we logarithmic here?
Aaron Stone wrote: > Ok, I think we should change the query in db_getmailbox_count to be < 2 > because the plan really is a lot less expensive than IN (0, 1). I know > this was a thread/bug we had a week or two ago, but it popped into my > head today that maybe the planner was guessing the IN (0, 1) meant the > same at < 2. It doesn't, and even on Pg 8, it's still more expensive. status in (0,1): > Sort (cost=9.67..9.67 rows=1 width=8) status < 2: > Sort (cost=8.31..8.31 rows=2 width=8) -- ________________________________________________________________ Paul Stevens paul at nfg.nl NET FACILITIES GROUP GPG/PGP: 1024D/11F8CD31 The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
