-----Original Message----- From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 3:43 PM To: Huang, Suya Cc: Andreas Kretschmer; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] GIN index not used
"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 About the contrib/intarray, do I have other choices not using that one? About the join, yeah, in our testing for DW-like queries, hash join does improved the performance greatly... Thanks, Suya -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
