**
**   (2) pTemplate costs more than any other WhereLoops for which pTemplate
**       is a proper subset.
**
** To say "WhereLoop X is a proper subset of Y" means that X uses fewer
** WHERE clause terms than Y and that every WHERE clause term used by X is
** also used by Y.











*/
static void whereLoopAdjustCost(const WhereLoop *p, WhereLoop *pTemplate){
  if( (pTemplate->wsFlags & WHERE_INDEXED)==0 ) return;
  if( (pTemplate->wsFlags & WHERE_SKIPSCAN)!=0 ) return;
  for(; p; p=p->pNextLoop){
    if( p->iTab!=pTemplate->iTab ) continue;
    if( (p->wsFlags & WHERE_INDEXED)==0 ) continue;

**
**   (2) pTemplate costs more than any other WhereLoops for which pTemplate
**       is a proper subset.
**
** To say "WhereLoop X is a proper subset of Y" means that X uses fewer
** WHERE clause terms than Y and that every WHERE clause term used by X is
** also used by Y.
**
** This adjustment is omitted for SKIPSCAN loops.  In a SKIPSCAN loop, the
** WhereLoop.nLTerm field is not an accurate measure of the number of WHERE
** clause terms covered, since some of the first nLTerm entries in aLTerm[]
** will be NULL (because they are skipped).  That makes it more difficult
** to compare the loops.  We could add extra code to do the comparison, and
** perhaps we will someday.  But SKIPSCAN is sufficiently uncommon, and this
** adjustment is sufficient minor, that it is very difficult to construct
** a test case where the extra code would improve the query plan.  Better
** to avoid the added complexity and just omit cost adjustments to SKIPSCAN
** loops.
*/
static void whereLoopAdjustCost(const WhereLoop *p, WhereLoop *pTemplate){
  if( (pTemplate->wsFlags & WHERE_INDEXED)==0 ) return;
  if( (pTemplate->wsFlags & WHERE_SKIPSCAN)!=0 ) return;
  for(; p; p=p->pNextLoop){
    if( p->iTab!=pTemplate->iTab ) continue;
    if( (p->wsFlags & WHERE_INDEXED)==0 ) continue;