"Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@rice.edu> writes:
> Bingo, that solved it. I'm back to 160 ms. What does Tom feel about
> removing this? Is there some way the planner could have known which
> was the smarter/faster order of application?
As I said in the previous thread, I don't have a lot of patience with
the notion of expecting the planner to promise anything about evaluation
order of WHERE clauses. I wasn't thrilled with adding the patch, but
I'm even less thrilled with the idea of backing it out now.
There has been some discussion of reordering WHERE clauses based on
estimated cost --- a simple form of this would be to push any clauses
involving subplans to the end of the list. I haven't done anything
about that yet, mainly because I'm unsure if there are cases where it
would be worse than not doing it.
regards, tom lane