From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Planner regression in 9.1: min(x) cannot use partial index with NOT NULL |
Date: | 2011-03-21 15:44:46 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinT_iQ6+5NxLMgid7P3CQ88JXyYps95gnAOCJ1+@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> wrote:
>>> I know that the Merge Append patch required some changes in the
>>> min/max optimization, which is probably the cause.
>
>> Yeah, I think this is a direct result of commit
>> 034967bdcbb0c7be61d0500955226e1234ec5f04.
>
> Yeah, looks that way. I'm not sure what it would take to re-support
> this case without losing the other advantages of the change. Personally
> I'm not terribly excited about it: I don't think that suppressing nulls
> from an index this way is really very useful. Using a partial index
> probably eats more planner cycles than you'll save, overall.
If only 1% of the table has non-NULL values in that column, maybe not.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-03-21 15:54:08 | Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-21 15:43:48 | Re: Rectifying wrong Date outputs |