=?UTF-8?Q?Fr=C3=A9d=C3=A9ric_Yhuel?= <frederic.yh...@dalibo.com> writes:
> On 9/17/25 16:41, Tom Lane wrote:
>> =?UTF-8?Q?Fr=C3=A9d=C3=A9ric_Yhuel?= <frederic.yh...@dalibo.com> writes:
>>> 2) the number of estimated rows is completely off in the second EXPLAIN,
>>> whereas the planner could easily use the statistics of foo_f_idx.
>> Hmm, not sure about that. Again, boolean-valued indexes aren't
>> something we've worked on too hard, but I don't see why that
>> would affect this case.
> OK, thanks anyway, I think the ju-jitsu mentioned above will do, even
> though the application code will have to be patched.
Sigh ... so the answer is this used to work (since commit 39df0f150)
and then I carelessly broke it in commit a391ff3c3. If you try this
test case in versions 9.5..11 you get a spot-on rowcount estimate.
Serves me right for not having a test case I guess, but I'm astonished
that nobody complained sooner.
regards, tom lane
