From: | Kasper Sandberg <kontakt(at)sandberg-consult(dot)dk> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #6530: intarray documentation could do with a warning about operators |
Date: | 2012-04-09 16:21:56 |
Message-ID: | 4F830CA4.8090808@sandberg-consult.dk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
yes, I could not figure out why my GIN index was not used, this is what
i meant.
On 09/04/12 18:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> We do have this:
>> <para>
>> The operators<literal>&&</>,<literal>@></> and
>> <literal><@</> are equivalent to<productname>PostgreSQL</>'s built-in
>> operators of the same names, except that they work only on integer arrays
>> that do not contain nulls, while the built-in operators work for any array
>> type. This restriction makes them faster than the built-in operators
>> in many cases.
>> </para>
>> But maybe some more explicit warning is needed. Not sure exactly what.
> I think the gripe is basically that, while these operators might be
> equivalent to the built-in ones as far as results go, they are not
> equivalent in terms of their ability to match to indexes. But not
> sure how we turn that observation into useful documentation.
>
> regards, tom lane
--
Kasper Sandberg
Sandberg Enterprises
+45 51944242
http://www.sandbergenterprises.dk
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-04-09 18:13:10 | Re: BUG #6528: pglesslog still referenced in docs, but no 9.1 support |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-09 16:16:29 | Re: BUG #6530: intarray documentation could do with a warning about operators |