"Huang, Suya" <suya.hu...@au.experian.com> writes:
> Just found out something here
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/17021.1234474...@sss.pgh.pa.us
> So I dropped the index and recreate it by specifying: using gin(terms_ts
> gin__int_ops) and the index works.
Oh, you're using contrib/intarray?
Pursuant to the thread you mention above, we removed intarray's <@ and @>
operators (commit 65e758a4d3) but then reverted that (commit 156475a589)
because of backwards-compatibility worries. It doesn't look like anything
got done about it since then. Perhaps the extension upgrade
infrastructure would offer a solution now.
> My PG version is 9.3.4, none-default planner settings:
> enable_mergejoin = off
> enable_nestloop = off
[ raised eyebrow... ] It's pretty hard to see how those would be
a good idea. Not all problems are best solved by hash joins.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
