Re: [HACKERS] minor bug...

> > ... there's no real reason not to support indexes on booleans, is
> > there?

afaict the only case where this would be a win is if there is a *very*
skewed distribution of boolean values, and you *only* want the
uncommon one. Otherwise, looking up half the rows in a table via index
has got to be worse than just scanning the table.

> Not that I can see.  Care to whip up the index support?  I think the
> only actual new code needed is a three-way-compare function (return -1,
> 0, or +1 according as a < b, a = b, a > b).  Then you need to make up
> the appropriate rows in pg_amop and related tables.  See the "xindex"
> chapter of the documentation.
> (It occurs to me that performance would probably suck, however, because
> btree doesn't handle lots of equal keys very efficiently.  Fixing that
> is on the TODO list...)

... And performance will suck anyway (see above) :)
               - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart                lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California