Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I imagine you've thought of this already but just in case, the cost of the
> function call has to be combined with the selectivity to get this right. If
> you can do an expensive but very selective clause first and save 100 cheap
> calls that almost always return true it may still be worthwhile.

I've thought of it, but I haven't figured out a reasonable algorithm for
ordering the clauses in view of that.  Have you?

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to