Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I imagine you've thought of this already but just in case, the cost of the > function call has to be combined with the selectivity to get this right. If > you can do an expensive but very selective clause first and save 100 cheap > calls that almost always return true it may still be worthwhile.
I've thought of it, but I haven't figured out a reasonable algorithm for ordering the clauses in view of that. Have you? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster