if( iCol<0 || (nInMul==0 && pNew->u.btree.nEq==pProbe->nKeyCol-1) ){
        if( iCol>=0 && pProbe->onError==OE_None ){
          pNew->wsFlags |= WHERE_UNQ_WANTED;
        }else{
          pNew->wsFlags |= WHERE_ONEROW;
        }
      }


    }else if( eOp & (WO_GT|WO_GE) ){
      testcase( eOp & WO_GT );
      testcase( eOp & WO_GE );
      pNew->wsFlags |= WHERE_COLUMN_RANGE|WHERE_BTM_LIMIT;
      pBtm = pTerm;
      pTop = 0;
    }else if( (eOp & WO_ISNULL)==0 ){
      assert( eOp & (WO_LT|WO_LE) );
      testcase( eOp & WO_LT );
      testcase( eOp & WO_LE );
      pNew->wsFlags |= WHERE_COLUMN_RANGE|WHERE_TOP_LIMIT;
      pTop = pTerm;
      pBtm = (pNew->wsFlags & WHERE_BTM_LIMIT)!=0 ?
                     pNew->aLTerm[pNew->nLTerm-2] : 0;
................................................................................
            ** cost to N*log(N)*log(Y/X).  The log(Y/X) term is computed
            ** by rScale.
            ** TODO: Should the sorting cost get a small multiplier to help
            ** discourage the use of sorting and encourage the use of index
            ** scans instead?
            */
            LogEst rScale, rSortCost;
            assert( nOrderBy>0 );
            rScale = sqlite3LogEst((nOrderBy-isOrdered)*100/nOrderBy) - 66;
            rSortCost = nRowEst + estLog(nRowEst) + rScale;

            /* TUNING: The cost of implementing DISTINCT using a B-TREE is
            ** also N*log(N) but it has a larger constant of proportionality.
            ** Multiply by 3.0. */
            if( pWInfo->wctrlFlags & WHERE_WANT_DISTINCT ){
              rSortCost += 16;
            }
            WHERETRACE(0x002,

      if( iCol<0 || (nInMul==0 && pNew->u.btree.nEq==pProbe->nKeyCol-1) ){
        if( iCol>=0 && pProbe->onError==OE_None ){
          pNew->wsFlags |= WHERE_UNQ_WANTED;
        }else{
          pNew->wsFlags |= WHERE_ONEROW;
        }
      }
    }else if( eOp & WO_ISNULL ){
      pNew->wsFlags |= WHERE_COLUMN_NULL;
    }else if( eOp & (WO_GT|WO_GE) ){
      testcase( eOp & WO_GT );
      testcase( eOp & WO_GE );
      pNew->wsFlags |= WHERE_COLUMN_RANGE|WHERE_BTM_LIMIT;
      pBtm = pTerm;
      pTop = 0;
    }else{
      assert( eOp & (WO_LT|WO_LE) );
      testcase( eOp & WO_LT );
      testcase( eOp & WO_LE );
      pNew->wsFlags |= WHERE_COLUMN_RANGE|WHERE_TOP_LIMIT;
      pTop = pTerm;
      pBtm = (pNew->wsFlags & WHERE_BTM_LIMIT)!=0 ?
                     pNew->aLTerm[pNew->nLTerm-2] : 0;
................................................................................
            ** cost to N*log(N)*log(Y/X).  The log(Y/X) term is computed
            ** by rScale.
            ** TODO: Should the sorting cost get a small multiplier to help
            ** discourage the use of sorting and encourage the use of index
            ** scans instead?
            */
            LogEst rScale, rSortCost;
            assert( nOrderBy>0 && 66==sqlite3LogEst(100) );
            rScale = sqlite3LogEst((nOrderBy-isOrdered)*100/nOrderBy) - 66;
            rSortCost = nRowEst + estLog(nRowEst) + rScale + 16;

            /* TUNING: The cost of implementing DISTINCT using a B-TREE is
            ** also N*log(N) but it has a larger constant of proportionality.
            ** Multiply by 3.0. */
            if( pWInfo->wctrlFlags & WHERE_WANT_DISTINCT ){
              rSortCost += 16;
            }
            WHERETRACE(0x002,

# 2014-04-26
#
# The author disclaims copyright to this source code.  In place of
# a legal notice, here is a blessing:
#
#    May you do good and not evil.
#    May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
#    May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
#
#***********************************************************************
# 

set testdir [file dirname $argv0]
source $testdir/tester.tcl
set testprefix cost


do_execsql_test 1.1 {
  CREATE TABLE t3(id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, b NOT NULL);
  CREATE TABLE t4(c, d, e);
  CREATE UNIQUE INDEX i3 ON t3(b);
  CREATE UNIQUE INDEX i4 ON t4(c, d);
}
do_eqp_test 1.2 {
  SELECT e FROM t3, t4 WHERE b=c ORDER BY b, d;
} {
  0 0 0 {SCAN TABLE t3 USING COVERING INDEX i3} 
  0 1 1 {SEARCH TABLE t4 USING INDEX i4 (c=?)}
}


do_execsql_test 2.1 {
  CREATE TABLE t1(a, b);
  CREATE INDEX i1 ON t1(a);
}

# It is better to use an index for ORDER BY than sort externally, even 
# if the index is a non-covering index.
do_eqp_test 2.2 {
  SELECT * FROM t1 ORDER BY a;
} {
  0 0 0 {SCAN TABLE t1 USING INDEX i1}
}

do_execsql_test 3.1 {
  CREATE TABLE t5(a INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,b,c,d,e,f,g);
  CREATE INDEX t5b ON t5(b);
  CREATE INDEX t5c ON t5(c);
  CREATE INDEX t5d ON t5(d);
  CREATE INDEX t5e ON t5(e);
  CREATE INDEX t5f ON t5(f);
  CREATE INDEX t5g ON t5(g);
}

do_eqp_test 3.2 {
  SELECT a FROM t5 
  WHERE b IS NULL OR c IS NULL OR d IS NULL 
  ORDER BY a;
} {
  0 0 0 {SEARCH TABLE t5 USING INDEX t5b (b=?)} 
  0 0 0 {SEARCH TABLE t5 USING INDEX t5c (c=?)} 
  0 0 0 {SEARCH TABLE t5 USING INDEX t5d (d=?)} 
  0 0 0 {USE TEMP B-TREE FOR ORDER BY}
}



finish_test

  INSERT INTO sqlite_stat1 VALUES('t1','t1bc','1000000 10 9');
  INSERT INTO sqlite_stat1 VALUES('t2','t2bc','100 10 5');
  ANALYZE sqlite_master;

  EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN
  SELECT * FROM t2 WHERE a=0 ORDER BY a, b, c;
} {~/B-TREE/}

do_execsql_test 2.1b {
  EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN
  SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a=0 ORDER BY a, b, c;
} {/B-TREE/}


do_execsql_test 2.2 {
  EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN
  SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE +a=0 ORDER BY a, b, c;
} {/B-TREE/}
do_execsql_test 2.3 {
  EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN

  INSERT INTO sqlite_stat1 VALUES('t1','t1bc','1000000 10 9');
  INSERT INTO sqlite_stat1 VALUES('t2','t2bc','100 10 5');
  ANALYZE sqlite_master;

  EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN
  SELECT * FROM t2 WHERE a=0 ORDER BY a, b, c;
} {~/B-TREE/}

do_execsql_test 2.1b {
  EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN
  SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE likelihood(a=0, 0.05) ORDER BY a, b, c;
} {/B-TREE/}


do_execsql_test 2.2 {
  EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN
  SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE +a=0 ORDER BY a, b, c;
} {/B-TREE/}
do_execsql_test 2.3 {
  EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN