yes, I could not figure out why my GIN index was not used, this is what
On 09/04/12 18:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> We do have this:
>> The operators<literal>&&</>,<literal>@></> and
>> <literal><@</> are equivalent to<productname>PostgreSQL</>'s built-in
>> operators of the same names, except that they work only on integer arrays
>> that do not contain nulls, while the built-in operators work for any array
>> type. This restriction makes them faster than the built-in operators
>> in many cases.
>> But maybe some more explicit warning is needed. Not sure exactly what.
> I think the gripe is basically that, while these operators might be
> equivalent to the built-in ones as far as results go, they are not
> equivalent in terms of their ability to match to indexes. But not
> sure how we turn that observation into useful documentation.
> regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2012-04-09 18:13:10|
|Subject: Re: BUG #6528: pglesslog still referenced in docs, but no
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-04-09 16:16:29|
|Subject: Re: BUG #6530: intarray documentation could do with a warning about operators |