Hi,
thanks for your time and answer. Not treating IS NULL as equality
operator definitely helps me to make more sense out of previous
explains.
--
Best Regard,
Artūras Lapinskas
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 12:23:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
=?utf-8?Q?Art=C5=ABras?= Lapinskas <arturaslape@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
After some more investigation my wild guess would be that then nulls are
involved in query postgresql wants to double check whatever they are
really nulls in actual relation (maybe because of dead tuples).
No, it's much simpler than that: IS NULL is not an equality operator,
so it's not treated as constraining sort order.
What you're asking for amounts to building in an assumption that "all
nulls are equal", which is exactly not what the SQL semantics for NULL
say. So I feel that you have probably chosen a bogus data design
that is misusing NULL for a purpose at variance with the SQL semantics.
That's likely to bite you on the rear in many more ways than this.
Even disregarding the question of whether it's semantically appropriate,
getting the planner to handle IS NULL this way would be a significant
amount of work.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
