On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.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
