From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Huang, Suya" <Suya(dot)Huang(at)au(dot)experian(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: GIN index not used |
Date: | 2014-07-11 05:43:24 |
Message-ID: | 21821.1405057404@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Huang, Suya" <Suya(dot)Huang(at)au(dot)experian(dot)com> writes:
> Just found out something here http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/17021.1234474178@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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Huang, Suya | 2014-07-11 05:47:51 | Re: GIN index not used |
Previous Message | Huang, Suya | 2014-07-11 05:26:09 | Re: GIN index not used |