On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Marti Raudsepp <ma...@juffo.org> wrote: >>> I know that the Merge Append patch required some changes in the >>> min/max optimization, which is probably the cause. > >> Yeah, I think this is a direct result of commit >> 034967bdcbb0c7be61d0500955226e1234ec5f04. > > Yeah, looks that way. I'm not sure what it would take to re-support > this case without losing the other advantages of the change. Personally > I'm not terribly excited about it: I don't think that suppressing nulls > from an index this way is really very useful. Using a partial index > probably eats more planner cycles than you'll save, overall.
If only 1% of the table has non-NULL values in that column, maybe not. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
