Re: GIN index not used
От
Tom Lane
Тема
Re: GIN index not used
Дата
Msg-id
21821.1405057404@sss.pgh.pa.us
Ответ на
Re: GIN index not used (Huang, Suya)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
GIN index not used "Huang, Suya" <Suya.Huang@au.experian.com>
Re: GIN index not used Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer@spamfence.net>
Re: GIN index not used Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: GIN index not used Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer@spamfence.net>
Re: GIN index not used "Huang, Suya" <Suya.Huang@au.experian.com>
Re: GIN index not used Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: GIN index not used "Huang, Suya" <Suya.Huang@au.experian.com>
Re: GIN index not used Emre Hasegeli <emre@hasegeli.com>
"Huang, Suya" 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
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления