Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>
> > > ... there's no real reason not to support indexes on booleans, is
> > > there?
>
> afaict the only case where this would be a win is if there is a *very*
> skewed distribution of boolean values, and you *only* want the
> uncommon one. Otherwise, looking up half the rows in a table via index
> has got to be worse than just scanning the table.
One (maybe only) case I can see use for it is for a multi-field index
containing many booleans (say an index over 16 boolean fields).
------------
Hannu
