Re: Huge speed penalty using <>TRUE instead of =FALSE

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Actually, now that I think about it, the planner already has
>>> datatype-specific knowledge about boolean equality (see
>>> simplify_boolean_equality).  It would take just a few more lines of code
>>> there to recognize "x <> true" and "x <> false" as additional variant
>>> spellings of the generic "x" or "NOT x" constructs.  Not sure if it's
>>> worth the trouble though; how many people really write such things?
>
>> I don't know, but there's probably somebody.  I probably did it myself
>> a few times, when I was just starting out.  If it's easy, it seems
>> worth doing.
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2009-07/msg00164.php
>
>                        regards, tom lane

Oh, cool. Sorry, I missed the fact that that email was almost a month old.

...Robert