X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136A35289D;
	Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:41:59 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 97129-04; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 04:41:50 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E536252824;
	Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:41:49 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j5H4fnGJ015888;
	Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:41:49 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Putting an INDEX on a boolean field? 
In-reply-to: <20050617011336.Q90456@ganymede.hub.org> 
References: <20050617011336.Q90456@ganymede.hub.org>
Comments: In-reply-to "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:14:45 -0300"
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:41:49 -0400
Message-ID: <15887.1118983309@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.005 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200506/213
X-Sequence-Number: 21814

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> Does that make sense?  Would it ever get used?

It could get used if one of the two values is far less frequent than the
other.  Personally I'd think about a partial index instead ...

			regards, tom lane