Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> For the case with equal Const values that should be mostly obvious, i.e.
> "a=1 AND a=1 AND a=1" has the same selectivity as "a=1".
> The case with different Const values is harder, unfortunately. It might
> seem obvious that "a=1 AND a=2" means there are no matching rows, but
> that heavily relies on the semantics of the equality operator. And we
> can't simply compare the Const values either, I'm afraid, because there
> are cases with cross-type operators like
> a = 1::int AND a = 1.0::numeric
> where the Consts are of different type, yet both conditions can be true.
FWIW, there's code in predtest.c to handle exactly that, at least for
types sharing a btree opfamily. Whether it's worth applying that logic
here is unclear, but note that we've had the ability to recognize
redundant and contradictory clauses for a long time:
regression=# explain select * from tenk1 where two = 1;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------
Seq Scan on tenk1 (cost=0.00..470.00 rows=5000 width=244)
Filter: (two = 1)
(2 rows)
regression=# explain select * from tenk1 where two = 1 and two = 1::bigint;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------
Seq Scan on tenk1 (cost=0.00..470.00 rows=5000 width=244)
Filter: (two = 1)
(2 rows)
regression=# explain select * from tenk1 where two = 1 and two = 2::bigint;
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Result (cost=0.00..470.00 rows=1 width=244)
One-Time Filter: false
-> Seq Scan on tenk1 (cost=0.00..470.00 rows=1 width=244)
Filter: (two = 1)
(4 rows)
It falls down on
regression=# explain select * from tenk1 where two = 1 and two = 2::numeric;
QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------
Seq Scan on tenk1 (cost=0.00..520.00 rows=25 width=244)
Filter: ((two = 1) AND ((two)::numeric = '2'::numeric))
(2 rows)
because numeric isn't in the same opfamily, so these clauses can't be
compared easily.
regards, tom lane
