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 :)
also, in reference to my last message, even if the % was 50/50, if the
table was such that the bool was in a table next to a text field with 20k
or text in it, an index on the bool would be much faster to go through
than to seq scan the table.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
