Re: BUG #6530: intarray documentation could do with a warning about operators

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: kontakt(at)sandberg-consult(dot)dk, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #6530: intarray documentation could do with a warning about operators
Date: 2012-04-09 16:16:29
Message-ID: 8741.1333988189@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> We do have this:

> <para>
> The operators <literal>&amp;&amp;</>, <literal>@&gt;</> and
> <literal>&lt;@</> 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.
> </para>

> 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

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kasper Sandberg 2012-04-09 16:21:56 Re: BUG #6530: intarray documentation could do with a warning about operators
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-04-09 16:15:47 Re: BUG #6545: le telechargement ne s acheve pas