=?UTF-8?Q?Fr=C3=A9d=C3=A9ric_Yhuel?= <frederic.yhuel@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 9/17/25 16:41, Tom Lane wrote: >> =?UTF-8?Q?Fr=C3=A9d=C3=A9ric_Yhuel?= <frederic.yhuel@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> 2) the number of estimated rows is completely off in the second EXPLAIN, >>> whereas the planner could easily use the statistics of foo_f_idx. >> Hmm, not sure about that. Again, boolean-valued indexes aren't >> something we've worked on too hard, but I don't see why that >> would affect this case. > OK, thanks anyway, I think the ju-jitsu mentioned above will do, even > though the application code will have to be patched. Sigh ... so the answer is this used to work (since commit 39df0f150) and then I carelessly broke it in commit a391ff3c3. If you try this test case in versions 9.5..11 you get a spot-on rowcount estimate. Serves me right for not having a test case I guess, but I'm astonished that nobody complained sooner. regards, tom lane
