Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34C506325E1 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 18:26:38 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 59050-10 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 21:26:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F29CE633D70 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 18:26:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHkaw-00072Z-BM for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 27 May 2010 23:26:26 +0200 Received: from ppp-93-104-161-253.dynamic.mnet-online.de ([93.104.161.253]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 23:26:26 +0200 Received: from spam_eater by ppp-93-104-161-253.dynamic.mnet-online.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 23:26:26 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org connect(): No such file or directory From: Thomas Kellerer Subject: Re: Does FILTER in SEQSCAN short-circuit AND? Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 23:26:31 +0200 Lines: 9 Message-ID: References: <4BFEE08E.2040804@emolecules.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-93-104-161-253.dynamic.mnet-online.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090302 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: <4BFEE08E.2040804@emolecules.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201005/241 X-Sequence-Number: 38825 Craig James wrote on 27.05.2010 23:13: > It would be nice if Postgres had a way to assign a cost to every > function. Isn't that what the COST parameter is intended to be: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-createfunction.html Thomas