Re: Huge speed penalty using <>TRUE instead of =FALSE - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Huge speed penalty using <>TRUE instead of =FALSE
Date
Msg-id 2279.1249917002@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Huge speed penalty using <>TRUE instead of =FALSE  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Huge speed penalty using <>TRUE instead of =FALSE  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-bugs
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).  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

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: wader2
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #4961: pg_standby.exe crashes with no args
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #4972: RFE: convert timestamps to fractional seconds