Yep, honestly this is far beyond my knowledge.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 2:56 PM Corey Huinker
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 5:11 AM Flo Rance wrote:
>
>> It is an expected behavior. You can see the list of array operators with
>> which a GIN index can be used in the doc:
>>
>> https://www.pos
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 5:11 AM Flo Rance wrote:
> It is an expected behavior. You can see the list of array operators with
> which a GIN index can be used in the doc:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/indexes-types.html
>
> And a very good and detailed explanation about any operator he
It is an expected behavior. You can see the list of array operators with
which a GIN index can be used in the doc:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/indexes-types.html
And a very good and detailed explanation about any operator here:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4058731/can-postgres
A client had an issue with a where that had a where clause something like
this:
WHERE 123456 = ANY(integer_array_column)
I was surprised that this didn't use the pre-existing GIN index on
integer_array_column, whereas recoding as
WHERE ARRAY[123456] <@ integer_array_column
did cause the GIN i
