Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> The bit about maybe not getting both t and f as MCVs on a Boolean does
> seem a little worrying, but I'm not sure whether it actually affects
> query planning in a materially negative way. Can you demonstrate a
> case where it matters?
If we were trying to force that to happen it would be wrong anyway.
Consider a column that contains *only* "t", or at least has so few
"f"'s that "f" appears never or only once in the selected sample.
(IIRC there is a clamp that prevents selecting anything as an MCV
unless it appears at least twice in the sample.)
Like Robert, I'm not convinced whether or not this is a reasonable
change, but arguing for it on the basis of boolean columns doesn't
seem very sound.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
