Re: Huge speed penalty using <>TRUE instead of =FALSE
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Huge speed penalty using <>TRUE instead of =FALSE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 603c8f070908101444p1905bff9tf7cef419559e94c3@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Huge speed penalty using <>TRUE instead of =FALSE (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Actually, now that I think about it, the planner already has >>> datatype-specific knowledge about boolean equality (see >>> simplify_boolean_equality). =A0It would take just a few more lines of c= ode >>> there to recognize "x <> true" and "x <> false" as additional variant >>> spellings of the generic "x" or "NOT x" constructs. =A0Not sure if it's >>> worth the trouble though; how many people really write such things? > >> I don't know, but there's probably somebody. =A0I probably did it myself >> a few times, when I was just starting out. =A0If it's easy, it seems >> worth doing. > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2009-07/msg00164.php > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0regards, tom lane Oh, cool. Sorry, I missed the fact that that email was almost a month old. ...Robert
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: